Modelling in the UK - Whats the law??
Mr S. Little
Hope you can help us with this one.
My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just like
Jordon.
She is now 16 and I have said I will support her in anything and everything
she does trying to be a good dad.
Before she does this though I want to know what the UK law is on what are
the things she can and cannot do for modelling.
She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ), but she also wants to do
non-nude underwear & lingerie modelling for fashion magazines or websites.
Please can someone give us guidence on whether or not this is allowed, and
if not what are the limits that she can only go to.
Many Thanks
S.Little
Nick Cleevely
"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
I think you and I might have different definitions of the adjective
"tasteful" if you find nothing wrong with your 16yr old daughter baring her
breasts to the world.
Jim Spriggs
He wants to see his own daughter's breasts and he thinks this is the
only legitimate way.
mavy
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:42988422...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
> Nick Cleevely wrote:
> >
> > "Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> >
> > > She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just
like
> > > Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
> >
> > I think you and I might have different definitions of the adjective
> > "tasteful" if you find nothing wrong with your 16yr old daughter baring
her
> > breasts to the world.
>
could be looking at upto 10 years
gfdsa
It's prudes like you that casue this country to be so hung up about
sex or nudity.
Infact it's because of people like you that it is now illegal for a 16
year old to do this sort of modelling.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
R D S
"gfdsa" <f...@trs.com> wrote in message
news:8f7h91lgp7giv7rh6...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:37:29 GMT, "Nick Cleevely"
> <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> >
> >> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
> >> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
> >
> >I think you and I might have different definitions of the adjective
> >"tasteful" if you find nothing wrong with your 16yr old daughter baring
her
> >breasts to the world.
> >
>
> It's prudes like you that casue this country to be so hung up about
> sex or nudity.
>
Europe?
> Infact it's because of people like you that it is now illegal for a 16
> year old to do this sort of modelling.
>
And this harms who?
Fat Freddy's Cat
"R D S" <rsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3frp74F...@individual.net...
>> It's prudes like you that casue this country to be so hung up about
>> sex or nudity.
>>
> Is it. I hadn't noticed, don't we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in
> Europe?
>
Highest teen preganancy rates in Europe...
Most draconian/Victorian outlook and laws on pornography, sex, nudity,
sex-education etc. in Europe...
I think I see a link there somehow.
g.
Nick Cleevely
"Fat Freddy's Cat" <por...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S-mdnd81zq-...@pipex.net...
Yep.
My wife and I went to Turkey in September 2004. The (British) tour rep
advised the whole coach that this time of year (i.e past peak season) was
what all the posted tour reps there uniformly called the "refined" season.
She went on to explain that by "refined" she meant that all the British
girls had finished shagging their way around every male in the resort and
had gone home.
She made a point of stressing that it is only British girls who behave this
way abroad. Other nationalities go abroad, have a good time, enjoy
themselves, but that's it.
And before anyone asks if the posted tour guide was fat, ugly, old, jealous
etc - she wasn't. She was very definitely a babe but clearly embarrassed by
the antics of British females. As she said "they tar all of us with the
same brush and it makes it very difficult for those of us left behind after
they've gone home to have their abortions, the locals think we're all easy".
Oh, another tip she gave us all - apparently (and this seems to be true from
my own observations), if you don't firstly hear them whooping and
caterwauling, you can spot a British girl abroad immediately by her plethora
of tattoos; no other females of any nationality appear to want to plaster
themselves in permanent ink.
We were all warned to give them a very wide berth.
I wonder what that says about the state of this shithole of a country?
Mr S. Little
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:42988422...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
Thanks for all your crude and hurtful comments when i was only asking a
question, however i cannot stop my daughter doing what she wants to do
thanks, either i give her my support or she will find some horrible
backstreet knocking shop to do it for her so what would i prefer?
So is it illegal for a 16 year old girl to do underwear modelling non-nude
or not?
Least if you say it is then i can tell her no way!!
Surely she can do other type of modelling??
Thank you.
Martin Davies
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:42988422...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
Is that any different from seeing the breasts of strangers in photos?
Martin <><
Martin Davies
Seems you need some helpful stuff.
Look at all the resources you can find about modelling. I've posted a couple
of links below, the bottom one does talk a little about the law but from the
quick look I did, it didn't mention 16 year old limitations.
Any reputable agency or reputable agent should know all about what a 16 year
old is allowed to do. Watch out for her - looks like more than a few scams
or problems for unwary models exist.
Its a good dream to have, hope she does well. Otherwise there are careers
around the modelling industry (costume, camera, organising and so on).
Martin <><
http://www.julietadams.co.uk/KDfaqs.htm
http://albamodel.info/faqs.php
Mr S. Little
"Martin Davies" <mart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vk3me.6127$LX2....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Thanks for your help Martin, i think the best we pulled out of that was :-
Q Are there any Laws concerning my child in the modelling and
entertainment's industry?
A YES - Any agency taking your child or teen under the legal school leaving
age onto their books should by Law, make sure that you are aware of the Laws
concerning the Licensing of those persons under the legal school leaving
age.
That question was for the persons not left school, she now has left school.
My daughter thought it was quite apt that a photo of Jordon was on that page
too!!
Any other helpful law links be appriecated?
Thanks
Fat Freddy's Cat
>
> Any other helpful law links be appriecated?
>
> Thanks
>
>
From memory, I seem to recall a documentary about Lindsey Dawn Mackenzie who
appeared in the 'Sport' or 'Star' under 16, but on her 16th birthday was
then allowed to be shown topless? Maybe the law has changed since then - it
was a good few years back.
I think a simple phone call to a reputable agency will give you *exactly*
what you need to know.
g.
Jonathan Bryce
> So is it illegal for a 16 year old girl to do underwear modelling non-nude
> or not?
> Least if you say it is then i can tell her no way!!
>
> Surely she can do other type of modelling??
If you look at catalogues selling children's underwear, do you see children
modeling them? That should give you the answer.
Jim Spriggs
He's been ogling his daughter since she was about ten and just aching
for the day when he could get a legal look at her. Now he discovers
that he's got another two years to wait.
Jim Spriggs
> >
> > It's prudes like you that casue this country to be so hung up about
> > sex or nudity.
> >
> Is it. I hadn't noticed, don't we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in
> Europe?
Yes. Because we are hung up about sex we fail to deal with it in a
natural manner were our children are concerned.
mja
> From memory, I seem to recall a documentary about Lindsey Dawn Mackenzie
> who appeared in the 'Sport' or 'Star' under 16, but on her 16th birthday
> was then allowed to be shown topless? Maybe the law has changed since
> then - it was a good few years back.
>
> I think a simple phone call to a reputable agency will give you *exactly*
> what you need to know.
The principal law concerning indecent images of children is s1 Protection of
Children Act 1978:
(1) Subject to sections 1A and 1B it is an offence for a person
(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or
pseudo-photograph of a child or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or
pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by
himself or others or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be
understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such
indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.
Also, see s7(6):
(6) "Child", subject to subsection (8), means a person under the age of 18.
S7(6) used to say that a child was a person under the age of 16; this was
amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with effect from 1st May 2004.
The maximum penalty for an offence under the Act is 10 years imprisonment -
raised from 2 years by the SOA 2003.
Of course, there may well be other relevant legal provisions, but this does
seem of itself to present an insuperable obstacle to the kind of modelling
described.
--
/mja
Martin Davies
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
But is it any different from ogling non-relations?
Is ogling breasts suddenly illegal?
The person who gets to ogle most will be a photographer. :)
Martin <><
Martin Davies
"mja" <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d7alb1$c9c$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Plenty of modelling work still around that isn't classed as 'indecent'
except by a few sad individuals.
I find it amusing that what some find 'indecent' in a photograph can be seen
all over Britain in tourist spots for much of the sunny weather when its
warm.
Martin <><
gfdsa
My point exactly.
"Kids, drugs are bad and dangeous!!"
What do they do? Take drugs.
Martin Davies
I just typed 'teen 16 law modelling' in www.yahoo.co.uk
Get educated about modelling - there are websites that will give some
information, books will have some information too. But for best results talk
to some agencies or agents that are reputable.
Martin <><
gfdsa
<por...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bC3me.34997$%%1.2...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
>>
>> Any other helpful law links be appriecated?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>From memory, I seem to recall a documentary about Lindsey Dawn Mackenzie who
>appeared in the 'Sport' or 'Star' under 16, but on her 16th birthday was
>then allowed to be shown topless? Maybe the law has changed since then - it
>was a good few years back.
Yes there was a countdown until she was legal to 'get 'em out'
Of course, the same tabloids are now printing SICK PERVERT stories
about men who download such images.
Alex Heney
It is *probably* not allowed, but would depend on the jury's view of
"indecent".
Since the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is now an offence to make or possess
indecent images of 16-17 year old children. (unless you are married to the
child in question. or living with them as if man and wife)
But what is indecent is a subjective decision in each case. Topless glamour
shots would most likely be classed as indecent. As would underwear
"glamour" shouts, but possibly not underwear shots for catalogues.
But I don't think any reputable agency would be willing to risk falling
foul of that law, and so would not be prepared to take "glamour" shots at
all of any girl under 18.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
I didn't cheat, I just changed the Rules!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Martin Davies
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:y2r5ddb3flhbcd...@40tude.net...
There are always the shots that don't show anything, but suggest.
Maxim-style - without showing too much. Not necessarily something for a new
model.
Martin <><
R D S
then this country wouldnt be the shithole that it is?
It seems to me that all young people 14yr upwards are constantly
pissed/drugged and shagging each other to death.
R D S
take it?
Now im all grown up I can drink as much as I like and as such am tee total,
I WISH!
There is no discipline and parents seem unable to communicate with their
children and seem to be more keen on being their mate than trying to steer
them in the right direction.
IanAl
>So if porn & drugs were freely available, and sex was discussed more openly
>then this country wouldnt be the shithole that it is?
>It seems to me that all young people 14yr upwards are constantly
>pissed/drugged and shagging each other to death.
Regretting your *lack* of a misspent youth, are you?
R D S
"IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jjbj91llpc1oas08b...@4ax.com...
No, as it happens I was a father at 16 so i've probably no room to speak.
I never blamed it on Mary Whitehouse et al and I certainly didn't do it
because anybody said I shouldn't.
Jim Spriggs
> So if porn & drugs were freely available, and sex was discussed more openly
> then this country wouldnt be the shithole that it is?
Curiously, the drugs that _are_ readily available (alcohol and tobacco)
are far more dangerous than those that the tabloids get so excited about
(cocaine, ecstasy, ...).
Martin Davies
Certainly with teen pregnancies, not teaching the kids about sex will not
help them understand the consequences..
How many parents will simply leave it to the schools? How many will trust
the kids that never listen in class will listen to the one or two lessons
devoted to discussing the reproductive organs (not really much sex education
anyway)?
Martin <><
Martin Davies
For most parents, there is little guidance, and no exam beyond the
practical.
Martin <><
crofter
they would expect / not expect..
David Wyn Davies
wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Hope you can help us with this one.
>
>My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just like
>Jordon.
>She is now 16 and I have said I will support her in anything and everything
>she does trying to be a good dad.
>Before she does this though I want to know what the UK law is on what are
>the things she can and cannot do for modelling.
>
>She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
>Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ), but she also wants to do
>non-nude underwear & lingerie modelling for fashion magazines or websites.
>
>Please can someone give us guidence on whether or not this is allowed, and
>if not what are the limits that she can only go to.
>
>Many Thanks
>
>S.Little
>
Having read through this thread it didn't surprise me that some of the
puritan, self-righteous, maggots of this newsgroup decided to vent
their 'disgust'. Amazing how some people will suspect every dad of
being a potential paedophile - they should work in the Government.
I think that what you are trying to do is laudible. If your daughter
has the looks to go into modelling, or the type of modelling that she
wants to do, then it's far better that you are supporting her - and
watching out for her by making sure she doesn't fall foul of the law -
than resisting her attempt to make a career for herself (this type of
modelling is hardly porn, for christ sake!).
I'm also somewhat amused by the wrangling over the number of teenage
pregnancies in the UK. The modelling industry is hardly awash with
teenage mums!! It's part of the job that they be sensible in case they
end up pregnant ... and with all the other body changes and
unpleasantries that go with it, which could ultimately cost the model
her career.
So by all means support her in her quest and I personally wish her
well.
As for me, I'm a dad to a little 2 year old girl (born on my birthday,
no less). Everybody reckons she's going to be an absolute stunner when
she's older. If she decided to use those looks when she's older, to
have the chance to travel the world, then it would be entirely wrong
of me to stop her.
As for wanting to see your daughter's breasts! Oh purlease!! You see
much more than that when they're younger - my little girl seems to
hate clothes. If she's not wearing one of her Barbie dress-up dresses,
she's wearing nothing at all.
CQMMAN
>
> I wonder what that says about the state of this shithole of a country?
Well emmigrate then. I get sick and tired of people moaning about this
country. If you don't like it leave. It really isn't that hard. No one is
forcing you to live here...
Bugger off and take your negativity with you.
--
Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first
prize in the lottery of life" -Cecil Rhodes
"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."
George W Bush -Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones. Psalms 137:9.
William Dunn (US fighter ace): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one
fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied
to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be,
without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine
- the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Jim Spriggs
> --
> ...
Your sig is excessively long and, on this occasion, was longer than your
post.
Jim Spriggs
>
> .... Amazing how some people will suspect every dad of
> being a potential paedophile - they should work in the Government.
The authorities and the tabloids _will_ interpret it that way. It is
best to warn him of that fact.
MM
wrote:
>Nick Cleevely <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder what that says about the state of this shithole of a country?
>
>
>Well emmigrate then. I get sick and tired of people moaning about this
>country. If you don't like it leave. It really isn't that hard. No one is
>forcing you to live here...
>
>Bugger off and take your negativity with you.
Ah, here's one who disproves the theory of evolution.
MM
CQMMAN
How is that? Because I actually appreciate the good things here and don't
jump on the band wagon? Because I have actually lived in quite a few other
countries so have some idea what it is like, rather than being an "armchair
critic"? Because I think that if people don't like something they should
change it?
No wonder English people have a reputation of being "whinging poms". It is
amazing how many complain amount immigration, then emmigrate to another
country. Or complain about how expensive it is here. Then take their pounds
to another country. Or complain about jobs, then emmigrate and do something
in a foreign country in a completely different line of work. It is
incredible how many people, with their homes on the continent, complain
about the opportunities here, while if they lived where they had their
house, there is no way they would have the same opportunities.
Or basically they just have a whinge because they have read something in the
Daily Mirror, Daily Express, or Sun, so it must be true.
Or perhaps you simply don't understand the theory of evolution?
Periander.
news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
I'd ignored this up till now as I'd assumed that he was trolling.
...
> My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just like
> Jordon.
Widely regarded by many as a vacuous slut with plastic tits.
> She is now 16 and I have said I will support her in anything and
everything
> she does trying to be a good dad.
"Get yer tits out darlin the lads down the street want a good wank". Be
assured that providing fresh meat for the porn industry will not necessarily
make you a good dad in most people's eyes.
> Before she does this though I want to know what the UK law is on what are
> the things she can and cannot do for modelling.
>
> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
Strictly unlawful at age 16, any person taking such pictures will be
arrested as will you if you do anything at all to facilitate the taking of
such pictures there are no "ifs or buts" in regards to this. You can also be
assured that a custodial sentence is the norm and anyone so convicted will
have to spend a lengthy period on the sex offenders register. You will also
find that you will be barred (for ever) from certain employments. Any half
way decent photographer is fully aware of this and won't touch you or your
daughter will a barge pole.
You may also wish to consider that if you were (say) to take her out of the
country in order for her to be exploited abroad the penalties mentioned
above will still apply.
> but she also wants to do
> non-nude underwear & lingerie modelling for fashion magazines or websites.
However that's not particularly problematic, there are plenty of agencies
around (some are even reputable) for child and teenage models.
--
regards or otherwise,
Periander
Martin Davies
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
Presumably plenty of models work in the UK under the age of 18.
Certainly enough agencies about.
Martin <><
Justine
>
>
>"R D S" <rsa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3frp74F...@individual.net...
>
>>> It's prudes like you that casue this country to be so hung up about
>>> sex or nudity.
>>>
>> Is it. I hadn't noticed, don't we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in
>> Europe?
>>
>
>Highest teen preganancy rates in Europe...
>Most draconian/Victorian outlook and laws on pornography, sex, nudity,
>sex-education etc. in Europe...
>
>I think I see a link there somehow.
Indeed, and the Netherlands has one of the lowest..
Justine
says...
>
>
>"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>
>> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
>
>"tasteful" if you find nothing wrong with your 16yr old daughter baring her
>breasts to the world.
>
>
What would you do if you saw a 16 year topless girl on the beach?
Justine
>
>On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:37:29 GMT, "Nick Cleevely"
><postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
>>> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
>>
>>I think you and I might have different definitions of the adjective
>>"tasteful" if you find nothing wrong with your 16yr old daughter baring her
>>breasts to the world.
>>
>
>sex or nudity.
>
In my experience, the anti-smut brigade are the worst pervs going..
Justine
>
>"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>
>I'd ignored this up till now as I'd assumed that he was trolling.
>...
>> My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just like
>> Jordon.
>
>Widely regarded by many as a vacuous slut with plastic tits.
She's a few quid ahead of you though isn't she?
She'd still be a "vacuous slut" if she wasn't a model, but would probably end up
working min wage.
Periander.
news:d7g0o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <3g1dpbF...@individual.net>, Periander. says...
> >
> >"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> >
> >I'd ignored this up till now as I'd assumed that he was trolling.
> >...
> >> My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just
like
> >> Jordon.
> >
> >Widely regarded by many as a vacuous slut with plastic tits.
>
> She's a few quid ahead of you though isn't she?
True, but is money everything in life?
> She'd still be a "vacuous slut" if she wasn't a model, but would probably
end up
> working min wage.
True, very true, however were that to be the case when her children ask
"What do you do mummy?" she wouldn't have to reply, "I get my tits out for
strangers to wank over".
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>You may also wish to consider that if you were (say) to take her out of the
>country in order for her to be exploited abroad the penalties mentioned
>above will still apply.
Why? If the taking of images was legal in the country in question,
how could anyone be convicted of an offence in the UK?
--
Cynic
Martin Davies
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nino9190119legrab...@4ax.com...
They wouldn't. Unless they came into this country with them and were caught,
which would then be for posession of any pictures that are illegal.
Martin <><
Periander.
news:_jZme.54462$g12....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Bingo! ... well almost, in addition to your suggestion there are specific
offences ...
... Sections 48, 49 and 50 of SOA 2003 would apply, 14 years on indictment
or 6 months if you want to take your chance with Bystander. We could also
look at S59 - same penalties.
--
regards,
Periander
IanAl
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>"Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> My teenage daughter has dreamed of being a model all her life, just like
>> Jordon.
>> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
>> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
>
>Strictly unlawful at age 16, any person taking such pictures will be
>arrested as will you if you do anything at all to facilitate the taking of
>such pictures there are no "ifs or buts" in regards to this.
"Where does it say" that photographing the breasts of a 16-year-old
woman is (in all cases) illegal?
Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
"But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
> You can also be
>assured that a custodial sentence is the norm and anyone so convicted will
>have to spend a lengthy period on the sex offenders register. You will also
>find that you will be barred (for ever) from certain employments. Any half
>way decent photographer is fully aware of this and won't touch you or your
>daughter will a barge pole.
Do you actually approve of this change in the law (raising the age at
which indecent photographs are regarded as "child pornography" from 16
to 18), or are you just "toeing the line"? Or does it make no
difference in your case?
Periander.
>
> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>
> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
...
>
> Do you actually approve of this change in the law (raising the age at
> which indecent photographs are regarded as "child pornography" from 16
> to 18), or are you just "toeing the line"?
In essence yes I do approve for very much the same reason I objected to the
socialists providing fresh 16 year old meat for their bum chums. If the
limit's 18 then there's always the excuse that "I thought (s)he was 18" when
in fact the person was only 16, fully accepting that there are many cases
when that wouldn't matter, no harms been done, let sleeping dogs lie and all
that. However it provided a measure of protection for young people from
being targeted by abusers. When the limit's 16 just as in the case of 18 it
becomes easy to say "I thought (s)he was 16" but in this case the person is
only 14 ... or younger.
No doubt I'll be derided or saying so but I believe that it's a very poor
society that doesn't act to protect its young.
> Or does it make no
> difference in your case?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, please explain.
Nugget
You do seem to have a wee thing about masturbation!
Perhaps this might help:
Masturbating the Month of May
http://www.sexuality.org/authors/steinberg/cn156.html
or
For a list of no fewer than one thousand terms for masturbation, check
out www.masturbationlist.com
Cheers ;-)
Nugget
Alex Heney
<news:3g1dpbF...@individual.net> wrote:
> "Mr S. Little" <a...@home.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:np_le.66523$Ge2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> Before she does this though I want to know what the UK law is on what are
>> the things she can and cannot do for modelling.
>>
>> She would ideally like to do tasteful glamour modelling shots just like
>> Linda Lucardi did when she was 16 ( just topless ),
>
> Strictly unlawful at age 16, any person taking such pictures will be
> arrested as will you if you do anything at all to facilitate the taking of
> such pictures there are no "ifs or buts" in regards to this.
You are, of course, simply wrong on this.
There is a HUGE "if or but". Namely, whether a jury would find "tasteful
glamour modelling" shots (topless) to be indecent.
I don't expect most would, although I certainly would not be willing to
risk it if I were a professional photographer.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Redundancy: A Politician with an airbag in his car.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Periander.
news:1ic9xgsok69ou.4...@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, Periander. in message
> <news:3g1dpbF...@individual.net> wrote:
> > Strictly unlawful at age 16, any person taking such pictures will be
> > arrested as will you if you do anything at all to facilitate the taking
of
> > such pictures there are no "ifs or buts" in regards to this.
>
> You are, of course, simply wrong on this.
>
> There is a HUGE "if or but". Namely, whether a jury would find "tasteful
> glamour modelling" shots (topless) to be indecent.
>
Bets?
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
news:zb_me.13141$RG2....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Dear Periander,
>
> You do seem to have a wee thing about masturbation!
>
> Perhaps this might help:
I expected more from you, still we all have off days.
Alex Heney
<news:3g37heF...@individual.net> wrote:
> "IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:4eoo91djls5ejqdd1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, "Periander."
>> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>>
>> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
>
> ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
> pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
> masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
> ...
That is just plain ridiculous.
I take it then you would say that taking photos on a beach is illegal
unless you can be sure that all the topless girls there are 18 or older?
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
I have enough trouble single-tasking!
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> No doubt I'll be derided or saying so but I believe that it's a very poor
> society that doesn't act to protect its young.
But since a potential photographer could marry the girl and then take
pictures without sanction to his heart's content, the law is somewhat
bizarre.
Axel
Alex Heney
That isn't something bettable on. It is pure fact.
Like I said, I wouldn't like to bet on whether a jury would find a
particular case indecent or not.
I would expect in most cases, a jury would not be looking at a single photo
in isolation, and the other photos will make a significant difference to
their interpretation.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
... KARAOKE is Japanese for "Tone Deaf"
Periander.
news:6tra26s1mt20$.19tp4qq2fikam$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:35:42 +0100, Periander. in message
> <news:3g37heF...@individual.net> wrote:
>
> > "IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:4eoo91djls5ejqdd1...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, "Periander."
> >> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
> >>
> >> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
> >
> > ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
> > pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
> > masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
> > ...
>
> That is just plain ridiculous.
>
> I take it then you would say that taking photos on a beach is illegal
> unless you can be sure that all the topless girls there are 18 or older?
Beach? I wouldn't be on a beach unless I was on holiday and as I've only had
3 in the last 19 years the question isn't really applicable. ;-)
Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of a
topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
Periander.
news:kK_me.25068$Li.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I presume that it's the difference between private titillation where no
exploitation occurs and exploitation for gain.
Periander.
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:34:41 +0100, Periander. in message
> <news:3g3b01F...@individual.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:1ic9xgsok69ou.4...@40tude.net...
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, Periander. in message
> >> <news:3g1dpbF...@individual.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Strictly unlawful at age 16, any person taking such pictures will be
> >>> arrested as will you if you do anything at all to facilitate the
taking
> > of
> >>> such pictures there are no "ifs or buts" in regards to this.
> >>
> >> You are, of course, simply wrong on this.
> >>
> >> There is a HUGE "if or but". Namely, whether a jury would find
"tasteful
> >> glamour modelling" shots (topless) to be indecent.
> >>
> >
> > Bets?
>
> That isn't something bettable on. It is pure fact.
Not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that that a properly instructed
jury would have no difficulty in finding such images indecent.
--
regards,
Periander
The Todal
"Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net...
>
> Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of a
> topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
> taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
What possible reason would a person have to photograph a cat, a car (someone
else's) an old tramp on the street, a child kicking a football in the park?
Because it makes an interesting or beautiful image. I would agree that
standing on a stepladder and looking over a garden fence in order to
photograph a girl sunbathing topless would be rather despicable behaviour,
but if it was on a beach in Greece where everyone was topless and nobody
objected to photographs, would there be anything morally wrong with that?
Even if you didn't want to enter the photograph into a competition but
merely wanted to show it to your friends and say "look at this topless
beach, bet you'd have liked it".
Alex Heney
<news:3g3ca7F...@individual.net> wrote:
> "Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1i807nmr8rrvj$.6sdr3xmxemaa$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:34:41 +0100, Periander. in message
>> <news:3g3b01F...@individual.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a HUGE "if or but". Namely, whether a jury would find
> "tasteful
>>>> glamour modelling" shots (topless) to be indecent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bets?
>>
>> That isn't something bettable on. It is pure fact.
>
> Not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that that a properly instructed
> jury would have no difficulty in finding such images indecent.
For some values of "properly".
Not most people's values, I suspect.
And incidentally, I disagree with your viewpoint that photos showing bare
breasts are mainly (or even significantly) for masturbatory purposes.
they are very mildly titillating, at best.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
It's okay to be ugly...but aren't you overdoing it?
Periander.
news:3g3e2tF...@individual.net...
>
> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net...
> >
> > Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of
a
> > topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
> > taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
>
> What possible reason would a person have to photograph a cat, a car
(someone
> else's) an old tramp on the street, a child kicking a football in the
park?
> Because it makes an interesting or beautiful image. I would agree that
> standing on a stepladder and looking over a garden fence in order to
> photograph a girl sunbathing topless would be rather despicable behaviour,
> but if it was on a beach in Greece where everyone was topless
It may be a thing of the past but I was under the impression that Greece had
rather strong nudity laws, still that's by the by and not exactly what any
of us are discussing ...
> and nobody
> objected to photographs, would there be anything morally wrong with that?
Assuming that you were taking a picture of a beach and there just so
happened to be a topless girl in the background then probably not a lot ...
still being who I am I'd look at the other images that person had in his
possession ... just to make sure the jury was fully informed.
Entirely different set of circumstances though from that postulated by the
OP and answered by me, that is specifically having a 16 year old girl
photographed for the purpose of obtaining indecent photographs. It's
unlawful, end of story and all these ifs and buts suggested by yourself and
others do not alter that simple fact.
Actually *many years ago* I had a 17 yo girlfriend who was a dancer/model
and she had a lovely set of photos in her portfolio ;-)
--
regards,
Periander
Alex Heney
<news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net> wrote:
> "Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:6tra26s1mt20$.19tp4qq2fikam$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:35:42 +0100, Periander. in message
>> <news:3g37heF...@individual.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4eoo91djls5ejqdd1...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, "Periander."
>>>> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>>>>
>>>> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
>>> pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
>>> masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
>>> ...
>>
>> That is just plain ridiculous.
>>
>> I take it then you would say that taking photos on a beach is illegal
>> unless you can be sure that all the topless girls there are 18 or older?
>
> Beach? I wouldn't be on a beach unless I was on holiday and as I've only had
> 3 in the last 19 years the question isn't really applicable. ;-)
>
I wasn't asking whether you would do it.
I was asking whether you thought it should be (or even is) illegal.
> Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of a
> topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
> taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
When I have been abroad on holiday, I have frequently taken photos of the
beach as a whole.
That has often included topless (or even nude) people, but just incidental
to the scene. I very much doubt if all of them were over 18.
And I know perfectly well that intent can be inferred. I also know that
courts are (rightly) generally reluctant to do so without overwhelming
evidence.
But then intent doesn't actually matter in this case. It is whether a
reasonable person would find the images indecent that matters.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Both of his feet are firmly planted in the air.
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
>> >> There is a HUGE "if or but". Namely, whether a jury would find
> "tasteful
>> >> glamour modelling" shots (topless) to be indecent.
>> > Bets?
>> That isn't something bettable on. It is pure fact.
> Not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that that a properly instructed
> jury would have no difficulty in finding such images indecent.
'Properly instructed'? Does the case of Lady Chatterly's Lover ring any
bells.
I am not saying that such photographs might not be found indecent, on
the the other hand they might not. A bit like National Geographic in the
early 60s.
Axel
Justine
In my view, if people pay good money for material and masturbate over it (you do
seem to have an unhealthy interest in masturbation BTW). Then I would say
congratulations to the model & photographer, they've produced a product which
people enjoy and doesn't harm anyone else.
This is the 21st century not the 19th, people no longer cover up the legs on
their piano - although I suspect you might in case people indulge in "self
pollution" at the sight of them.
Alex Heney
You presume wrongly.
It has nothing to do with "gain".
Actually, it is quite obvious that the exemption for those married to (or
living in a stable relationship with) the subject of the photos is
obviously (to me) an afterthought.
The legislators wanted t change the rules to make 18 the legal age, but
then somebody said "hang on, that means you can shag them, but not
photograph them. that can't be right". So they tacked on the "marriage"
exception.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Why are Chinese fortune cookies written in English?
dr
wrote:
You have to remember that Periander is one of the new breed of power
crazed, moralistic, witch hunting police officers that knows better
than you or I and if you dont agree with him you are an evil child
abuser.
It's pointless arguing with him.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Spriggs
>
> "Where does it say" that photographing the breasts of a 16-year-old
> woman is (in all cases) illegal?
>
> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>
> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
Do you know of trials in which photographs (taken since the SOA 2003
act) of a sixteen-year-old showing her breasts has been deemed legal?
> Do you actually approve of this change in the law (raising the age at
> which indecent photographs are regarded as "child pornography" from 16
> to 18),
Do you know why the age was changed? Was there much opposition to the
change?
Jim Spriggs
>
> "IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:4eoo91djls5ejqdd1...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, "Periander."
> > <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
> >
> > "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
>
> ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
> pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
> masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
Why shouldn't a holiday brochure show topless bathing in the south of
France, for example?
Alex Heney
<news:3g3en2F...@individual.net> wrote:
> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:3g3e2tF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net...
>>>
>>> Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of
> a
>>> topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
>>> taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
>>
>> What possible reason would a person have to photograph a cat, a car
> (someone
>> else's) an old tramp on the street, a child kicking a football in the
> park?
>> Because it makes an interesting or beautiful image. I would agree that
>> standing on a stepladder and looking over a garden fence in order to
>> photograph a girl sunbathing topless would be rather despicable behaviour,
>> but if it was on a beach in Greece where everyone was topless
>
> It may be a thing of the past but I was under the impression that Greece had
> rather strong nudity laws, still that's by the by and not exactly what any
> of us are discussing ...
>
The *long* past.
I have visited various parts of Greece quite frequently since the early
80s, and I don't think I have *ever* been on a well populated beach without
a significant number of topless females.
Complete nudity is supposedly illegal except on designated beaches, but in
practice is generally accepted so long as it is discreet or in out of the
way places.
You will find a lot more topless and nude bathing in Greece than in the UK,
and that is not just tourists.
>> and nobody
>> objected to photographs, would there be anything morally wrong with that?
>
> Assuming that you were taking a picture of a beach and there just so
> happened to be a topless girl in the background then probably not a lot ...
> still being who I am I'd look at the other images that person had in his
> possession ... just to make sure the jury was fully informed.
>
Of course you would. And I would expect anybody to do so.
I would not even expect a prosecution to be brought if all the person had
was a few beach photographs that showed incidental topless girls.
We were only bringing that in to show that photos of topless 16-17 year old
children is not *necessarily* illegal.
> Entirely different set of circumstances though from that postulated by the
> OP and answered by me, that is specifically having a 16 year old girl
> photographed for the purpose of obtaining indecent photographs.
That is not the circumstances postulated by the OP.
That is *your* rather prudish interpretation.
>It's
> unlawful, end of story and all these ifs and buts suggested by yourself and
> others do not alter that simple fact.
>
You would be right, *IF* you were right about the circumstances. But you
aren't right about the circumstances, and so you aren't right about the law
either.
If the proposed photos were definitely going to be indecent, then they
would be illegal. But "indecent" is in the mind of the observer, and I
would think very few people will find "tasteful" photos of topless
women/girls to be indecent.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
If I save time, when do I get it back ?
Jim Spriggs
> still being who I am
Who are you btw?
Jim Spriggs
>
> Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of a
> topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the person
> taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
Surely taking pictures of people on holiday is an extremely common
activity (and an innocent one).
sharky
> It is *probably* not allowed, but would depend on the jury's view of
> "indecent".
>
> Since the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is now an offence to make or possess
> indecent images of 16-17 year old children. (unless you are married to the
> child in question. or living with them as if man and wife)
>
> But what is indecent is a subjective decision in each case. Topless glamour
> shots would most likely be classed as indecent. As would underwear
> "glamour" shouts, but possibly not underwear shots for catalogues.
>
> But I don't think any reputable agency would be willing to risk falling
> foul of that law, and so would not be prepared to take "glamour" shots at
> all of any girl under 18.
>
Not really been following this thread , so excuse me if someone has
asked this or mentioned it:
I remember the Sun or Star publishing a page 3 girls picture on her 16th
birthday, which presumably is illegal to do or to own now.
However, there are numerous 'Get the newspaper from the day you were
born' companies around, what would be the position if you ordered the
issue containing the 16 yr old girl above.
Would they be obliged to remove that page before sending it?
Could they get done if they omitted to remove it unwittingly?
Alex Heney
<news:429C8FC9...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
> IanAl wrote:
>
>>
>> "Where does it say" that photographing the breasts of a 16-year-old
>> woman is (in all cases) illegal?
>>
>> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>>
>> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
>
> Do you know of trials in which photographs (taken since the SOA 2003
> act) of a sixteen-year-old showing her breasts has been deemed legal?
>
No, but all that has changed in that respect is the age at which it becomes
legal. I do know of cases prior to the 2003 act where photos of younger
children naked have been fond legal.
>> Do you actually approve of this change in the law (raising the age at
>> which indecent photographs are regarded as "child pornography" from 16
>> to 18),
>
> Do you know why the age was changed? Was there much opposition to the
> change?
No, I don't.
I'd have to look it up in Hansard, and frankly, I can't be bothered.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Petroleum and coffee had no value a few centuries ago.
The Todal
> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:3g3e2tF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net...
>> >
>> > Seriously what possible reason would a person have to take a picture of
> a
>> > topless girl? Especially if she wasn't in a relationship with the
>> > person
>> > taking the photo? Intent can be inferred don't you know?
>>
>> What possible reason would a person have to photograph a cat, a car
> (someone
>> else's) an old tramp on the street, a child kicking a football in the
> park?
>> Because it makes an interesting or beautiful image. I would agree that
>> standing on a stepladder and looking over a garden fence in order to
>> photograph a girl sunbathing topless would be rather despicable
>> behaviour,
>> but if it was on a beach in Greece where everyone was topless
>
> It may be a thing of the past but I was under the impression that Greece
> had
> rather strong nudity laws, still that's by the by and not exactly what any
> of us are discussing ...
When I was last in Crete, maybe 20 years ago, the beach we mainly used had a
remarkable number of topless girls on it. I didn't dare take any photographs
for fear of seeming perverted. My mother, aged over 60, happily photographed
as many of them as possible because she thought it was very amusing.
Possibly she wanted to prove to her friends that she had interesting
holidays. I have no reason to believe she had any lesbian tendencies, though
of course you never can tell. She isn't around to ask any more.
>
>> and nobody
>> objected to photographs, would there be anything morally wrong with that?
>
> Assuming that you were taking a picture of a beach and there just so
> happened to be a topless girl in the background then probably not a lot
> ...
> still being who I am I'd look at the other images that person had in his
> possession ... just to make sure the jury was fully informed.
>
> Entirely different set of circumstances though from that postulated by the
> OP and answered by me, that is specifically having a 16 year old girl
> photographed for the purpose of obtaining indecent photographs. It's
> unlawful, end of story and all these ifs and buts suggested by yourself
> and
> others do not alter that simple fact.
You have cheated slightly - if the photographs are indecent, that makes them
unlawful. Not everyone is able to agree on what is or isn't indecent. To
some people, "indecent" isn't part of their normal vocabulary and has no
meaning. They may prefer to judge whether a photograph is beautiful or ugly,
or prurient, or shocking. Put them in a jury room and ask them to say
whether it is indecent and they will be stuck for an answer and the other
jurors may have to persuade them what the concept of indecency entails.
To me (and it is inevitably subjective), the "Page 3" pictures in the
tabloids which show bare breasted women, are all indecent and are all
unhealthy. They demean women and must affect the attitude of young men
towards women. They encourage feckless girls to get plastic surgery that
they don't need. Any father who encourages his daughter to pose for such
photographs is encouraging her to prostitute herself, and even if she is old
enough to make an informed decision it isn't something that a responsible
father ought, in my opinion, to encourage.
IanAl
>"IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:4eoo91djls5ejqdd1...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:09:19 +0100, "Periander."
>> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>>
>> Surely it's only "if" said photographs are deemed indecent by a jury?
>>
>> "But" they are allowed if deemed "artistic".
>
>ROTFLOL the only reason (outside of medical texts and so forth) to show
>pictures of the tits of a 16 year old piece of fresh meat is to provide
>masturbatory material for those who are excited by such things.
>...
>>
>> Do you actually approve of this change in the law (raising the age at
>> which indecent photographs are regarded as "child pornography" from 16
>> to 18), or are you just "toeing the line"?
>
>In essence yes I do approve for very much the same reason I objected to the
>socialists providing fresh 16 year old meat for their bum chums. If the
>limit's 18 then there's always the excuse that "I thought (s)he was 18" when
>in fact the person was only 16, fully accepting that there are many cases
>when that wouldn't matter, no harms been done, let sleeping dogs lie and all
>that. However it provided a measure of protection for young people from
>being targeted by abusers. When the limit's 16 just as in the case of 18 it
>becomes easy to say "I thought (s)he was 16" but in this case the person is
>only 14 ... or younger.
>
>No doubt I'll be derided or saying so but I believe that it's a very poor
>society that doesn't act to protect its young.
>
>> Or does it make no
>> difference in your case?
>
>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, please explain.
I meant that I thought that you slavishly follow the course of
legislation.
In view of your other remarks, I withdraw the suggestion.
I think that your motives are much more perverse, though not actually
perverted in the usual definition of the word.
Something that should concern us all, considering your involvement in
law enforcement.
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>Not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that that a properly instructed
>jury would have no difficulty in finding such images indecent.
The only instruction they may be given regarding their decision as to
whether the image is or is not indecent is to use their own standards
of decency in deciding. Therefore a properly instructed jury could
decide either way.
Whilst it is quite likely that a jury may consider the images to be
indecent, I would not want to take a bet one way or the other. Not
everyone thinks as you do, and not everyone would find an image of a
16 year old indecent merely because the girl was topless. Some jury
members may even have visited places where topless 16 year olds are a
common site on any beach.
In any case, the person likely to be prosecuted would be the
photographer & publisher, not the father.
If all the father has done is to encourage his daughter to join a
*reputable* model organisation, and not disagree with her choice to
pose topless if the situation arose, I cannot see which law he could
be prosecuted under.
--
Cynic
Periander.
>
> "Periander." <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3g3en2F...@individual.net...
> > Entirely different set of circumstances though from that postulated by
the
> > OP and answered by me, that is specifically having a 16 year old girl
> > photographed for the purpose of obtaining indecent photographs. It's
> > unlawful, end of story and all these ifs and buts suggested by yourself
> > and
> > others do not alter that simple fact.
>
> You have cheated slightly -
Moi?
> if the photographs are indecent, that makes them
> unlawful. Not everyone is able to agree on what is or isn't indecent. To
> some people,
As you well know motive (intent) can be inferred for the available facts
what motive do you infer from a situation whereby a person sets out to take
pictures that (if we're to use Alex's terminology) are intended to sexually
"titillate", that the purpose of those photographs is for them to be
distributed in order that other people can be encouraged to buy them ... or
more likely have more taken. The the person being photographed is little
more than a child.
> "indecent" isn't part of their normal vocabulary and has no
> meaning.
Rubbish, it's a perfectly normal everyday word.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:52:23 +0100, Periander. in message
>
> > Beach? I wouldn't be on a beach unless I was on holiday and as I've only
had
> > 3 in the last 19 years the question isn't really applicable. ;-)
> >
>
> I wasn't asking whether you would do it.
I know, but I'm getting bored.
I believe the rest of your post has already been addressed.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
news:429C90E9...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
> "Periander." wrote:
>
> > still being who I am
>
> Who are you btw?
Periander, alter ego of dormouse ... oh that's not what you meant is it?
A highly suspicious cynical middle aged git, and I'm afraid that'll have to
do.
Periander.
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:49:48 +0100, Periander. in message
> <news:3g3c1cF...@individual.net> wrote:
>
> > <ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message
> > news:kK_me.25068$Li.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Periander. <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> No doubt I'll be derided or saying so but I believe that it's a very
> > poor
> >>> society that doesn't act to protect its young.
> >>
> >> But since a potential photographer could marry the girl and then take
> >> pictures without sanction to his heart's content, the law is somewhat
> >> bizarre.
> >
> > I presume that it's the difference between private titillation where no
> > exploitation occurs and exploitation for gain.
>
> You presume wrongly.
>
> It has nothing to do with "gain".
Baring in mind that "gain" does not necessarily equal financial gain.
> Actually, it is quite obvious that the exemption for those married to (or
> living in a stable relationship with) the subject of the photos is
> obviously (to me) an afterthought.
You're probably correct.
Periander.
news:1q3p911im7v25s2dm...@4ax.com......
> It's pointless arguing with him.
It is for you, you don't have the wit. Now piss off smicker.
Periander.
None if the persons depicted are adults.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
news:5r5bqdq7uqa4$.1ki7nofyjoluh.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:38:05 +0100, Periander. in message
> <news:3g3en2F...@individual.net> wrote:
...
> > Assuming that you were taking a picture of a beach and there just so
> > happened to be a topless girl in the background then probably not a lot
...
> > still being who I am I'd look at the other images that person had in his
> > possession ... just to make sure the jury was fully informed.
> >
>
> Of course you would. And I would expect anybody to do so.
>
> I would not even expect a prosecution to be brought if all the person had
> was a few beach photographs that showed incidental topless girls.
>
> We were only bringing that in to show that photos of topless 16-17 year
old
> children is not *necessarily* illegal.
Fair enough.
> > Entirely different set of circumstances though from that postulated by
the
> > OP and answered by me, that is specifically having a 16 year old girl
> > photographed for the purpose of obtaining indecent photographs.
>
> That is not the circumstances postulated by the OP.
>
> That is *your* rather prudish interpretation.
Well you may well argue that, but I believe no, not just my interpretation
and certainly not prudish I con't think of any reasonable motive other than
sexual why a person would wish to take photographs of a topless young girl.
> >It's
> > unlawful, end of story and all these ifs and buts suggested by yourself
and
> > others do not alter that simple fact.
> >
>
> You would be right, *IF* you were right about the circumstances. But you
> aren't right about the circumstances,
We're going to have to agree to disagree ...
> and so you aren't right about the law
> either.
... which makes the above moot.
Periander.
In the context put forward by the OP, professionally taken photos so I can
be a good dad and help my daughter grow up to be like Jordan? The beach
thing is a red herring.
Periander.
> >> Or does it make no
> >> difference in your case?
> >
> >I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, please explain.
>
> I meant that I thought that you slavishly follow the course of
> legislation.
Fair enough, it just appeared a little ambiguous.
> In view of your other remarks, I withdraw the suggestion.
>
> I think that your motives are much more perverse, though not actually
> perverted in the usual definition of the word.
;-) That one I could work out by myself.
> Something that should concern us all, considering your involvement in
> law enforcement.
Am I? I have been very careful to never make any public comment about what I
do for a living ... other than historical information now long out of date
and of course some of the things I do in my spare time.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
news:pd7p91hs08c28ibni...@4ax.com......
> In any case, the person likely to be prosecuted would be the
> photographer & publisher, not the father.
I ask you to trust me on this. Of course things may be a little different in
different parts of the country. My money would be on the powers that be
making father No 1 target.
> If all the father has done is to encourage his daughter to join a
> *reputable* model organisation, and not disagree with her choice to
> pose topless if the situation arose, I cannot see which law he could
> be prosecuted under.
Well going back to my very first post to this thread I very largely agree
with your implied opinion in that a reputable model organisation would be
the way forward. They would take sex shots whilst she was still under age
though.
--
regards,
Periander
joe parkin
4rubbish.britwar.co.uk says...
> True, but is money everything in life?
>
No, but it does buy everything.
--
joeparkinchineseatbtinternetdotcom
The Todal
>> unlawful. Not everyone is able to agree on what is or isn't indecent. To
>> some people,
>
> As you well know motive (intent) can be inferred for the available facts
> what motive do you infer from a situation whereby a person sets out to
> take
> pictures that (if we're to use Alex's terminology) are intended to
> sexually
> "titillate", that the purpose of those photographs is for them to be
> distributed in order that other people can be encouraged to buy them ...
> or
> more likely have more taken. The the person being photographed is little
> more than a child.
However, motive is irrelevant if the Graham-Kerr case remains good law. I
suppose if you are a police officer deciding whether to prosecute, you focus
very much on motive. Once it gets to court, the jurors are supposed to look
at the photograph and forget the motive.
>
>> "indecent" isn't part of their normal vocabulary and has no
>> meaning.
>
> Rubbish, it's a perfectly normal everyday word.
For those over 40, perhaps. You will hear people saying that a photograph
or a television play was disgusting or rude, but not that it was "indecent",
a word that has been imported from a nineteenth century legal dictionary.
It's like asking people to judge whether a play is "blasphemous".
Periander.
> However, motive is irrelevant if the Graham-Kerr case remains good law. I
> suppose if you are a police officer deciding whether to prosecute, you
focus
> very much on motive. Once it gets to court, the jurors are supposed to
look
> at the photograph and forget the motive.
I belive that you'll find certain differences in practice, for instance,
holiday snaps of children in bathing costumes to all intents and purposes
perfectly legitimate ... however when viewed in the context of being part of
a larger collection of pornographic images of children ... and this has a
practical application.
For instance we often hear hereabouts about various folks only being
convicted of having a mere "x" number of dubious images on their computer
... what they don't tell you is that as aprt of the data recovery process
"y" number of images have also been found however their provenance cannot be
proved. Browsing history ... easy, saved images ... easy, recycle bin .. can
lead to a few issues, deleted images likewise, recovered images though ...
???
Go for what you can prove and the rest are thrown in to make sure the jury
don't make a mistake.
> >> "indecent" isn't part of their normal vocabulary and has no
> >> meaning.
> >
> > Rubbish, it's a perfectly normal everyday word.
>
> For those over 40, perhaps. You will hear people saying that a photograph
> or a television play was disgusting or rude, but not that it was
"indecent",
> a word that has been imported from a nineteenth century legal dictionary.
> It's like asking people to judge whether a play is "blasphemous".
You old fogie, my experience would suggest that more folks than you suggest
have very clear ideas of what is and is not indecent or blasphemous and
whilst they may disagree with what someone else believes to be indecent or
blasphemous they can still argue their case in context.
--
regards,
Periander
Periander.
news:MPG.1d05b8bb3...@news.individual.net...
> In article <3g2k3sF...@individual.net>, bigbounce@
> 4rubbish.britwar.co.uk says...
> > True, but is money everything in life?
> >
>
> No, but it does buy everything.
Really? Cure for cancer? The love of your life? The moment you land after
you fly your first solo ...
I genuinely feel sorry for people who think like that.
The Todal
I should have added that "indecent" is an ordinary everyday word for police
officers too, because they frequently have to investigate allegations of
indecent assault and decide whether the victim has been assaulted and if so,
whether it was a decent assault or an indecent one. There is of course no
such thing as a decent assault. I am not sure whether there is such a thing
in law as a decent picture of a child.
The meaning of "indecent" is probably known only to lawyers, until the judge
gives his summing up to the jury. The precedent is R.v. Stanley, Court of
Appeal, 1965
[quote]
The words "indecent" and "obscene" convey one idea, namely, offending
against the recognised standards of propriety, indecency being at the lower,
and obscenity at the upper, end of the scale. An indecent article is not
necessarily obscene, but an obscene article is almost certainly indecent.
[unquote]
The recognised standards of propriety inevitably change from one decade to
the next. Indeed, the recognised standards of propriety would be different
depending on whether you happened to be in Brighton or Carlisle.
Jim Spriggs
>
> Well you may well argue that, but I believe no, not just my interpretation
> and certainly not prudish I con't think of any reasonable motive other than
> sexual why a person would wish to take photographs of a topless young girl.
Oh dear, I have photographs of my daughter (not just topless but) naked
on a beach.
I took them for the same reason anybody else takes holiday snaps.
Jim Spriggs
>
> ...
>
> To me (and it is inevitably subjective), the "Page 3" pictures in the
> tabloids which show bare breasted women, are all indecent and are all
> unhealthy. They demean women and must affect the attitude of young men
> towards women. They encourage feckless girls to get plastic surgery that
> they don't need. Any father who encourages his daughter to pose for such
> photographs is encouraging her to prostitute herself, and even if she is old
> enough to make an informed decision it isn't something that a responsible
> father ought, in my opinion, to encourage.
Are you what we may call a bit of an old fuddy-duddy?
Alex Heney
<news:3g3n9gF...@individual.net> wrote:
> "Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pd7p91hs08c28ibni...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:57:09 +0100, "Periander."
>> <bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>> In any case, the person likely to be prosecuted would be the
>> photographer & publisher, not the father.
>
> I ask you to trust me on this.
Why?
All you have shown in this thread is prejudice. (in the true meaning of the
word).
>Of course things may be a little different in
> different parts of the country. My money would be on the powers that be
> making father No 1 target.
>
Which would be remarkably stupid of them, since I very much doubt there
would be *anything* they could pin on him, unless he was personally
profiting from, taking, or keeping any of the photographs, *and* they were
considered by the jury to be indecent.
>> If all the father has done is to encourage his daughter to join a
>> *reputable* model organisation, and not disagree with her choice to
>> pose topless if the situation arose, I cannot see which law he could
>> be prosecuted under.
>
> Well going back to my very first post to this thread I very largely agree
> with your implied opinion in that a reputable model organisation would be
> the way forward. They would take sex shots whilst she was still under age
> though.
I presume you missed a "not" there :-)
And whilst *you* may call them "sex shots", that is part of what I meant by
you showing prejudice. Most people would not class normal "glamour" topless
shots as "sex shots".
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
When it comes to humility, I'm the very BEST there is!
Cynic
<bigb...@4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>As you well know motive (intent) can be inferred for the available facts
>what motive do you infer from a situation whereby a person sets out to take
>pictures that (if we're to use Alex's terminology) are intended to sexually
>"titillate", that the purpose of those photographs is for them to be
>distributed in order that other people can be encouraged to buy them ... or
>more likely have more taken. The the person being photographed is little
>more than a child.
You mean *exactly* the same circumstance that "the Sun" was in a year
or so ago with the "countdown" to 16 of a model until they could
publish a photograph of her tits? The newspaper that takes all
opportunities to express its disgust at paedophiles? The same rag
that got hold of the SOR and published names & photographs of sex
offenders to "name and shame"?
FWIW I *broadly* agree with you. 16 is a little too young for a girl
to be exploiting her sexuality commercially. It carries a significant
risk of causing her harm IMO. Not 100% certain, mabe not even 50% -
but high enough that I would advise the OP not to encourage her to
enter that aspect of the "glamour industry" for at least another
couple of years.
But the acceptance of the "Sun's" publication would indicate that
unless their marketing department is totally out of touch with
reality, there is a heck of a lot of the population that are quite
happy to accept the publication of sexually titillating photographs of
16 year olds as being far from indecent.
It is entirely possible that at least 3 people with a "Sun" mentality
could be on the jury.
--
Cynic
The Todal
"Jim Spriggs" <jim.s...@ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
You'd have to offer a definition of that term...
I have no objection to mainstream pornography so long as it is out of reach
of children in the newsagent and ordinary customers aren't forced to look at
glossy photographs of bums and tits. I have no objection to R18 pornography
so long as it is similarly kept to an area where you would have to look for
it. But I do object to the Daily Star's regular offerings of front page
photographs staring up a woman's skirt, and to most of the Page 3 style
photographs in mainstream tabloids. They are indecent and unhealthy because
of their context and readership.