It is also an offence for an under-18 to take a picture of themselves that is considered "indecent" - even if they don't share it with anyone else. The legal definition includes fully clothed pictures "in provocative poses".
Majority of underage sexting suspects turn out to be underage too
The majority of suspects in underage "sexting" cases are actually underage themselves, according to South Yorkshire Police in the UK. Of course, it's not any less a crime to share indecent images of children if it's children themselves sharing the images, although the Crown Prosecution Service has historically been hesitant to …
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 17:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
That's illegal too - unless you can prove the hypothetical owner of those physical attributes was not under-18. Any virtual representation of an under-18 is counted exactly the same as a real photograph of them.
Before the 2003 Sexual Offences Act there was a distinction between under-16 and under-18. If they were under 18 but over 16 then they were not lumped in with "children" - and the pose had to be much more like hard porn.
IIRC in some jurisdictions in the UK the law has an exception for the spouse of a married under-18 (and therefore over 16) having such pictures of them.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 15:15 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
Law must be reasoned or it becomes tyrannical law.
True, but it would help if some reason was applied when drafting the law in the first place, rather than leaving it up to some CPS wonk who may or may not be having a bad day, or a judge who is getting pissed off with interpreting bad statutes.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 16:21 GMT Dr. Mouse
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
If there is a clear exception placed in guidelines, then that clear exception could be written into the law.
As it stands, guidelines or not, it is possible for a 15-year-old to be imprisoned for having pictures of their 15-year-old girlfriend, obtained with their consent. They have committed a crime. Just because the guidelines state they shouldn't be prosecuted for it doesn't mean that they never will.
Why can it not be written into the law that this is legal? OK, it wouldn't stop there being legal arguments about the nature of their relationship, whether consent was given etc. but at least it would be written into the law.
There are too many exceptions to rules which are only in guidelines. Guidelines can be changed at the drop of a hat, laws need to be changed by parliament. The same goes for all data collection powers, anti-terror powers etc. If they are for a specific purpose, that needs to be written into the law, not left as "We promise we will not abuse these powers".
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 21:33 GMT P. Lee
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
Perhaps there should be an automatic, "if the jury acquits when the evidence points to a conviction x number of times in a given time period, the law is automatically referred back to parliament."
Of course, you are relying somewhat on the judge's opinion and you really need to still have jury trial for that to work, but it would be a useful feedback mechanism.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
"[..] the law is automatically referred back to parliament."
That is the basis of English "case law" - which can re-interpret a law according to the mores of the time. It creates a precedent that can be quoted by lawyers in future cases to support their client's position. Unfortunately case law is only made by expensive Appeal Court decisions - not by jury trial acquittals .
In the 2002 case of Regina v. Oliver an appeal court judge tried to establish factual rules for which pictures of under-18s can be considered "indecent". That five point SAP scale has apparently since been superseded by a three point one that seems to revert back to having a lowest catch-all category termed "indecent".
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:01 GMT Alan Brown
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
"As it stands, guidelines or not, it is possible for a 15-year-old to be imprisoned for having pictures of their 15-year-old girlfriend, obtained with their consent. They have committed a crime. Just because the guidelines state they shouldn't be prosecuted for it doesn't mean that they never will."
I can think of exactly such a case from when I were a lad and reading court transcripts in the local paper for part of my homework.
A 15yo boy was in court on charges of underage sex with his 15yo gf.
The judge, courts and police didn't want to deal with it, but the girl's father had taken legal action to _force_ the criminal case to go ahead.
The boy was convicted, discharged and given absolute name suppression. The judge did NOT have kind words to say about the girl's father or the stupidity of a law which allowed such a case to proceed when it was not in the interests of natural justice.
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
The same sort of guidelines are sometimes applied to the age of consent.
When the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was open to public consultation there was a strong case made for an "age difference" stipulation for those either side of the legal age of consent. This is the law in many European countries - where it aims to only criminalise exploitation by usually older predators.
Unfortunately the SOA 2003 was apparently being driven by several lobby groups involved in the drafting process - so only some small reasonable changes were made before the act was passed. The Government's stance was that the appeal courts could take care of the awkward detail by case law if innocent people were convicted.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 19:35 GMT J. Cook
Re: If the law isn't enforced, it shouldn't exist
Ah, yes. "Zero Tolerance Policy".
When turns a _drawing_ of a firearm into a mandatory suspension or possible expulsion because OMG GUNS WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN HURT!!! (Yes, it's happened over here in the US.)
/sarcasm
I am *so* glad I'm well and done with formal schooling and don't have kids.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 14:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
So now if Mr Saville
co-erced one of his already exploited underage kids to exploit their friends, he gets off on only the single charge?
Sometimes "teenage frolics" can have a lifetime effect on the "victims"
Even the Barclays advert showing how they regretted the online name they chose when younger should make it clear, you chose wrong and will be punished for it.
What would happen if pics of Blair or May's kids "bits" appear again in later life because the police failed to give the right signal to the perpetrators?
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 15:22 GMT Teiwaz
Re: So now if Mr Saville [deceased]
So apparently the serial molester has risen from the dead to continue his opportunistic preying under the guise of charity work...
Sounds like a plot for a B-movie.
I'd guess if it's consensual sexting, merely being investigated, even if a prosecution is not pursued would count as a significant trauma for a young person IMO.
They really need to look at the law again over this, the shadow of victorian morality is still evident.
'Children' should be allowed to make mistakes, and it's society that should ensure they not suffer unduly for those mistakes but learn from them - otherwise what is childhood for, and adults have failed as mentors for the next generation.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So now if Mr Saville [deceased]
"...] the shadow of victorian morality is still evident."
It's not necessarily a resurgence of victorian morality. It probably has more to do with the importing of modern USA puritan morality. Like those Moral Majority preachers or politicians who are often caught with their pants down - or their hands in someone else's.
When the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 was drafted - the "best practice" was taken to be the USA. That ignored the fact that many parts of the USA had a much higher teenage pregnancy rate than even the UK. The good track record of many European countries was ignored.
The attitude of the police is often still an echo of various Chief Constables of the recent past who apparently saw their Christian god directing their persecution of nudity or sex. Theresa May has brandished her god credentials already.
Quote of James Anderton - Chief Constable Greater Manchester 1976-91
"God works in mysterious ways. Given my love of God and belief in Him and Jesus Christ, I have to accept that I may well be used by God in this way."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anderton
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 23:06 GMT P. Lee
Re: So now if Mr Saville [deceased]
I think you'd find that the Puritans would be rather upset with the Moral Majority and vice-versa.
Personally I suspect that it is the decline in morality (self-restraint) precipitated mainly by commercial interests (who find it easy to sell stuff with sex) which leads to a great deal of the increase in problematic behaviour to start with.
Take teen pregnancy, for example, what do the graphs show? What cultural trends does the graph mirror? An increase in "modern American puritanism" or something else? What about abortion? "My body, my right" is one opinion, but what would we think of 190,000 women per year who decided to cut off another part of her body (an arm or a leg) and put it through a meat grinder? But what about a woman who has been raped? An excellent point - until we go back to the stats and see 190,000 rapes per year? Or are we just sacrificing children on the altar of convenience and earning potential?
I'm not saying we should pass a law banning abortion or that we should throw fifteen-year-old sexters into jail, merely that these are symptoms of the lack of internal controls. Some of it may be just from a lack of experience, but perhaps we should look at the philosophies being fed to our children and the commercial pressures driving them and decide if the cash adult owners of media corporations receive from feeding sexualised content to children is worth the toll it takes on them.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So now if Mr Saville [deceased]
"Take teen pregnancy, for example, what do the graphs show? What cultural trends does the graph mirror?"
It is apparently the USA states that legislate against sex education etc that have the highest teen pregnancy rates. IIRC some of those states are also the ones that allow marriage for under-16s if they are pregnant.
The more a society hides sex - the more curious children are about it. Many European countries have good sex education programmes and an open attitude to public discussion. Their children tend to delay having sex until a later age. The UK is now starting to have a downward trend in teenage pregnancies - and sex is no longer such a taboo subject as it was even twenty years ago.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:39 GMT Alan Brown
Re: So now if Mr Saville [deceased]
"Take teen pregnancy, for example, what do the graphs show? "
It's lower than it's ever been in history. Bear in mind that 150 years ago kids used to get married at 13(*) and accurate reporting has really only existed since the 1960s
(*) Yes, really and 11-13 was the common age for losing one's virginity unless you were upper class.
. When the UK introduced consent laws, 16 was rather arbitrarily chosen - and not on maturity grounds (people arguing for that were shooting for 21). It was set to try and stem trade in child prostitution.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:04 GMT Alan Brown
Re: So now if Mr Saville
"Even the Barclays advert showing how they regretted the online name they chose when younger should make it clear, you chose wrong and will be punished for it."
'tis better to have a stupid online name as a kid, which you can change later than post in your own one and have it linked to your adult profile forevermore.
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 16 and want to share images?
"so kids playing "you show me yours, and I'll show you mine" is legal face-to-face,"
Nope - that's illegal too unless they are over 16.
A kid of 10 was put on the Sex and Violent Offenders Register for "pinging" girls bra straps. Of course at 10 he is of an age (in England) to be considered responsible for any criminal actions. He has to wait another 6 years before he will be considered responsible enough for sex - and another 2 before he can look at pictures of naked people.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 15:30 GMT JimmyPage
Sigh ... once again, using law to dictate morality ..
leads to nonsense.
Sometimes, it's possible to see how and why dictatorships emerge ... mainly because they don't have to give a flying fuck about what the Daily Mail - or any of it's moronic supporters - thinks or says.
They can just pass sensible laws which reduce harm.
(See also "War on Drugs") ....
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Sigh ... once again, using law to dictate morality ..
"[...] dictatorships emerge ... mainly because they don't have to give a flying fuck about what the Daily Mail [...]"
Unfortunately dictators, left or right, are usually brought to power by the support of the readers of such newspapers. The idea of compromise leads to a Parliamentary Democracy - but that spirit is an anathema to dictators.
Show me an idealist - and I'll show you a future dictator - who will then get swept away by his own clique of supporters if he looks like he might be becoming pragmatic.
The likes of His Grace, His Excellency, The Duke of Ankh; Commander Sir Samuel Vimes are not nice people - even if their rule could be considered benign overall.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 21:49 GMT Mark 85
Re: Sigh ... once again, using law to dictate morality ..
I think we're seeing the fruit of that here in the States. Both candidates and the media tossing indiscretions about "the other person" while ignoring their own.
Some sites play a similar game with "body shaming".. articles how bad it is and then another article with pictures of "my goodness. xxxx is putting on soooo much weight these days".
No responsibility, no remorse, just toss the carp a the fan. You lot over across the pond seem to be having a similar situation with regard to laws such as the one under discussion. The dictator decides...
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:02 GMT Cynic_999
It's worse than that. If you had to decide between a group of 40 year old men having a 5 hour depraved sex session with your 16 year old daughter (which they have managed to get her to agree to), or having them take a photograph of your daughter sunbathing topless on a French beach, which would you prefer happen - the first, perfectly legal act or the second, seriously illegal act?
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 22:19 GMT Teiwaz
French ...?
All bets are off, 'french beach' topless is practically de rigeur, she'd be due a fine if she were wearing a 'muslim wetsuit' however...
Why '40 year old men' exactly. I'm feeling old, dirty (and under par - (five hours?) doubt I could last any more than ten minutes in that unlikely scenario).
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 18:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
"But if they take a selfie of their Nice Lusty Night they are suddenly criminals."
IIRC in Northern Ireland there is a legal exception that makes it ok in the case of a married couple where the pictured spouse is under-18. However - just how "lusty" is permitted is an interesting question.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 20:44 GMT King Jack
Lisa Simpson
The Simpsons are not and never have been real but viewing a version of the 2012 Olympic logo could have you convicted as a sex offender. It is stupidity like that that cheapens convictions maybe to a point where being a sex offender will carry the same weight as being convicted for 'criminal' TV viewing.
I'm glad I'm not long for this existence.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 21:44 GMT jake
Daftest thing is ...
Kids have been flashing each other since before there was writing. It's part of growing up. When the chemical soup that makes us "grow up" turns up the wick, we start exploring our sexuality. It's totally, completely normal. All animals do it.
As technology improves and becomes inexpensive/mainstream, the kids will use it to augment this flashing. My girlfriend in 10th grade (15 years old) slipped a naked SX-70 photo of herself into my locker in highschool[0].
My grandfather had a daguerreotype of my grandmother naked, sent to him via post from "the old country". We ran across it when going thru' his things after he passed. According to the date on it, she was 14 and a half ... It was almost shockingly pornographic, and the accompanying letter was quite steamy & indicated that they had been having sex[1] 18 months prior. We chose to bury the letter and photo with him; it seemed fitting somehow :-)
There is absolutely no amount of legislation that can even slow this down, much less put a stop to it. Adults should know better than to even try ... Especially our elected officials.
As a side-note to the Euros in the audience: not all us Yanks are prudes.
[0] Don't worry, legal eagles, it's long gone ... She broke into my house and destroyed it 35 years ago, or thereabouts, after I dumped her because she was a slut ;-)
[1] What, you kids think *you* invented it?[2]
[2] STR
-
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 00:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Potentially"?
"When was the last time we heard about anyone getting a 15 year-old - or a 14 year-old or a 13 year-old - girl pregnant and being prosecuted for having sex with a minor."
Try this one. A 17 year old boy and his nearly 16 girlfriend. (April 2015)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-apologises-teenager-prosecuted-having-5503678
..and an extract from an article about a conviction appeal to the House of Lords in 2010
"The effect of the law is that if two 15-year-olds engage in consensual sexual activity and each knows that the other is under 16, they will both be guilty of an offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/15/teenagers-law-human-right-consensual-sex
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 09:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Dacre
"But it's OK if the children look "all grown up"?"
It's more like the converse. It is illegal if they are under 18 - or appear in some way under 18.
A conviction in England a few years ago was only quashed in the appeals court after about two years.
The defendant had been convicted for using a hotel room system to look at legal US gay pr0n. The web site published its mandatory legal conformity to "all models over 18" (2257 information). The police and CPS had decided that didn't count as a defence because they thought some of the models looked like an under 18.
Even showing models in clothing that could relate to children is potentially illegal. In 2015 a judge made the licence approval for a Bristol strip club dependent on them removing all advertising showing their undoubtedly adult models in the style of the St Trinian's film school uniforms. The advertising was for themed St Trinian's parties in the club. The comedy film had had an audience certificate of "12A" for the 2007 remake - and the 1954 original was an unrestricted "U".
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 10:51 GMT PapaD
Two films
There are at least two films that I can name that have, by the UK definition, child pornography in them, but which are still perfectly legal to watch (one even recently turned up on Netflix)
Monty Python's meaning of life (go back and watch the 'every sperm is sacred' scene, quite a few naked young children there.
Pretty Baby (A young Brook Shields is naked in that several times)
Both of these films have passed the BBFC and are legally available.
I doubt you could make such films now - and I guess they survive on 'artistic merit' in the same way that the renaissance saw lots of painters drawing nude children, and those don't seem to count as child pornography, though they would be if they were drawn/painted now.
We live in a confusing world.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 13:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Two films
William Goldings's 1954 "Lord of the Flies" has been a set book in English secondary schools for decades. To help interest reluctant readers teachers often recommend they watch a video of the Peter Brook's 1963 film - or the 1990 USA colour re-make that doesn't do the book justice.
Louis Malle (Pretty Baby) also made the 1971 Oscar nominated "Murmur of the Heart" - which IMDB describes as "This is a jolly coming-of-age story about a 14-year-old boy [...]". Set in 1950s France against a background of news of the escalating French war in Vietnam. For his15th birthday his older brothers give him a present of a visit to the local brothel - with his bourgeois parents' approval. It was on BBC or C4 TV in the 1990s as part of their regular foreign films series.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 17:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Two films
The Hole (2001) features a 15-year-old, at the time of filming, Keira Knightley getting her baps out - she was 16 when it was released. Also Brooke Shields, again, in The Blue Lagoon (1980).
There was also a film called Friends (1971) which used to be a regular feature on daytime ITV in the 80s about French kids Paul and Michele's love affair, running away together and having a baby. Quite sweet really. Made a great impression on me as a teenage lad :-) The actress was of age but playing a 15-year-old which would be frowned upon these days.
-
Wednesday 12th October 2016 18:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Two films
"The actress was of age but playing a 15-year-old which would be frowned upon these days."
IIRC the age of consent in France and many other European countries is nominally 15 - but with various age gap provisions down to 13. Germany is 14 with age gap safeguards against predators. Spain used to be 13 but has recently raised it to 16. Malta and the Vatican City have a higher one - although I believe the latter was 12 until recently.
The age for marriage in Europe - with or without parental consent - tends to be higher.
The USA has state laws - that vary considerably with 21 being the highest. Some states have (had?) 12 as the age for marriage of girls under certain circumstances. A 15 year old neighbour's son lost his virginity to an 18 year old girl on a trip to the USA. She left her house by climbing out of her bedroom window - and then climbed into his room and bed. Apparently in Tennessee that would not have been illegal as she was less than four years his senior.
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
