R V Peters - (Or Sue Piper V Naturism)
pmailkeey
It has been made clear that British Naturists have a severe handicap
and a steep uphill struggle in the fight for the freedom of naturism
in Britain when two allegedly pro-naturists turn against other
naturists in their time of need.
When Mr Peters first had a problem last year, he turned to the CCBN,
as a member and a naturist, for their assistance and support with his
problem. Their response was quite simple.
They suspended his membership of CCBN.
Thankfully, Mr Peters knows that not all naturists and naturist
organisations are so anti-helpful. I have supported him wholeheartedly
throughout the FIFTEEN months of suffering he has endured in the hands
of the police, CPS, Social Services and the local press - and
subsequently the people that read the papers.
It is not only the CCBN who have shunned him, so too has Sue Piper, a
well known and who I believe was a well respected naturist. A respect
no longer befitting her.
Suzanne Maree Piper was against Mr Peters from the start regarding
some decent naturist photographs. Photographs similar to ones found in
various naturist magazines including BN. Evidence in her statement to
the police in which she claimed Mr Peters photographs were indecent or
inappropriate.
She maintained her stance on her appearance in Warwick Crown Court
(Court no.3) as a witness for the prosecution. Cath Carrey, who used
to organise the Waterworld naturist swims at Stoke On Trent also
appeared as a witness for the prosecution.
It was significant that no defence witnesses were needed, although
four of us were there if need be. In fact, the case was so doubtful
that the Jury was sent out twice while the Judge discussed with the
barristers points of law including whether or not there was sufficient
evidence for a case at all.
In the end, of the seven photographs, which Sue Piper, a "naturist"
maintained contained indecent images, the Jury found unanimously SIX
of the images were not indecent, and by 10:2 (or 11:1) majority, the
Jury found the seventh as not indecent.
Mr Peters was discharged and awarded expenses.
It is somewhat shocking to find any naturist, let alone an experienced
one of Sue Piper's standing to even think an image indecent when a
jury of 12 which must comprise of few, if any, naturists do not find
the images indecent.
The good news is that I won a £10 bet on the outcome !
I hope Sue Piper has learnt from her mistake and that others do also.
After all, it has led to the suffering of an innocent fellow naturist
for well over a year.
Mike. In court, in shorts in person.
--
Comm again, Mike.
Duncan Heenan
"pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
How did the police come by these pictures in the first place?
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
duncanheenanR...@tiscali.co.uk says...
>
> "pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
> news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
> > Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
> >
> > It has been made clear that British Naturists have a severe handicap
>
date , from pmailkeey!
sp...@shabden.co.uk
as naturist photographs. The photographs I saw I would certainly not have
published in BN - it is a matter of opinion. Some of the photographs I saw
were obviously taken without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
within a caravan and out through an awning.
The evidence I understood I was to be giving was that naturist do not take
covert photographs, no do they take photographs of minors without consent of
the adult responsible for those minors.
My understanding was that the parents of these young people had not given
permission.
I do not know if you saw all of the evidence that I saw including the
compilation of various videos that were taken in one of the defendants home
(he understand pleaded guilty a few months back) - certainly I could see no
purpose in retaining these. The reason given was security as things were
being stolen so I understand. If there was nothing stolen why keep a tape
with several hours of young people using two computers in what seemed a
small room. the youths were nude and masturbating and generally messing
around with their genitals.
If that is naturism or the type of thing a naturist would wish to keep
......
--
Suzanne Piper
Naturist Life is the naturist magazine to read
www.shabden.co.uk
suz...@shabden.co.uk
"Duncan Heenan" <duncanheenanR...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40a31...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
CraigM
> Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
>
> well known and who I believe was a well respected naturist. A respect
> no longer befitting her.
I have no idea about the court case that you are referring to, but to
launch a personal attack in this way on an individual on a public
message board is absolutely out of order. That it should be someone
with the integrity of Sue Piper is disgraceful.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Journalist-North
"pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
>
> It has been made clear that British Naturists have a severe handicap
> and a steep uphill struggle in the fight for the freedom of naturism
> in Britain when two allegedly pro-naturists turn against other
> naturists in their time of need.
>
> When Mr Peters first had a problem last year, he turned to the CCBN,
> as a member and a naturist, for their assistance and support with his
> problem. Their response was quite simple.
>
> They suspended his membership of CCBN.
(snip)
>
> Mr Peters was discharged and awarded expenses.
>
(snip)
> Comm again, Mike.
--------
And has R V Peters been reinstated to CCBN as well?... or at least not
saddled with being on their "black list" if he was, after all , not guilty
of any offence.
Journalist
Journalist-North
<sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6uFoc.19$KZ...@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> I was asked to give evidence as to whether the photographs were acceptable
> as naturist photographs. The photographs I saw I would certainly not have
> published in BN - it is a matter of opinion.
+++ Interesting that an editorial decision on use and placement of a photo
(of any kind - but in this case a naturist image) would have a bearing on
the issue of indecency or not of a photo. I recently saw a piece of work on
photography for Sports Illustrated that indicated that they editorially
screen over a million pictures a year but only publish in the quantity of
several thousand - clearly an editorial decision. Would that mean that
somehow the rest are not "acceptable" pictures of sports activity?
Some of the photographs I saw
> were obviously taken without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
> within a caravan and out through an awning.
> The evidence I understood I was to be giving was that naturist do not take
> covert photographs, no do they take photographs of minors without consent
of
> the adult responsible for those minors.
> My understanding was that the parents of these young people had not given
> permission.
+++ Again, there is no particular law of privacy applicable in any place
open to the public, and, again, the means of making an image, whether that
is through the net curtains or with a 1000mm long range optical system,
should not and does not dictate the acceptability, or not, of the content.
(snip)
> Suzanne Piper
-------
I should assume that you were answering the questions as put to you, Sue,
but the line of questioning was, to say the least, outside of the real
question of the actual content.
Journalist
Brian
"pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
I suspect that Sue Piper and Cath Carrey as well known naturists were used
by the prosecution to try and sway the jury into believing the photos were
obscene and to return a guilty verdict.
What qualifications do they have if any to judge these photos if any?
They should now hang their heads in shame after the not guilty verdict.
Brian
Richard Burnham
Journalist-North <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>I should assume that you were answering the questions as put to you, Sue,
>but the line of questioning was, to say the least, outside of the real
>question of the actual content.
>
>Journalist
>
I do not know the details of the court case, but if the pictures were
taken without the knowledge and consent of the subjects, and
particularly if they were pictures of minors taken without the knowledge
and consent of the legal guardians, then there is absolutely no question
in my mind that BN is correct in refusing them for publication and in
taking a very suspicious view of the photographer (of which more in
another post).
This is not a legal issue, it's a moral one, and is not affected by any
half-baked legal points 'journalist' can find in his vast collection of
textbooks.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Richard Burnham
<snowma...@hotmail.com> writes
A bit rich, coming from CraigM.
However, I do agree it is out of order to attack someone for giving
evidence under oath to a court, which has the duty to weigh the evidence
before coming to a verdict.
It is almost certainly also contempt of court. Anyone putting pressure
on someone to change evidence, or to punish them for giving evidence,
can be penalised by the court (including imprisonment if the judge
considers it appropriate). So I suggest that Suzanne contacts the court
in case Mike Paley is starting a campaign against her.
Suzanne's response is not very clear - I can understand if she has been
shaken up by Mike Paley's post - and I do not know the circumstances of
this case and the expulsion of R V Peters, but it looks as if there is a
lot more to the whole matter than we know, including other materials
allegedly subject to another case.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Tim Forcer
> ... Some of the photographs I saw were obviously taken
> without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
> within a caravan and out through an awning.
Case law has established that circumstances such as these are not
material in determining whether or not an image is "indecent". (R
v Graham-Kerr, 1988 and R v Oliver and others, 2002, being the
primary judgements for this aspect - AIUI.)
> The evidence I understood I was to be giving was that naturist
> do not take covert photographs, no do they take photographs
> of minors without consent of the adult responsible for those minors.
IMO, this is a faulty argument. I cannot see how the practice
(or otherwise) of naturism can explicitly include or exclude this
sort of behaviour. To do that, one needs to add some adjective
(eg "responsible", "considerate"), which can then, IMO, be
applied equally well to a non-naturist as to a naturist (eg
Spencer Tunick!!!). While at least some of us might hope or wish
that all naturists were responsible, considerate (etc, etc), it
is ridiculous to expect that this will be how we all are, all the
time, in real life. In my experience of naturists and
non-naturists, on balance naturists ARE nicer, more decent folk.
But it's a shift of the distribution, not an elimination of one
side of it.
As regards permission to take photos of minors, IMO that would
only be a significant issue were the photos being considered to
be published. If everyone taking a photo which showed a child
had to ask that child's permission first, there would be a huge
reduction in the number of photographs taken at places like Alton
Towers!
IMO we are getting only very limited information on this case
(which, of course, it not at all unusual - court cases often last
days or weeks, yet reports condense and select from all that
evidence/argument and produce mere hundreds of words, or less).
IMO it doesn't help that we are being presented with another
trial (whether or not CCBN and individual naturists did the right
thing) BEFORE we have been given anything like enough material on
which to base any sort of judgement.
I would be most interested to know the basis on which Sue Piper
and Cath Carrey were giving evidence (including whether this was
as individuals or as officers of CCBN or any naturist club).
While either side is entitled to call anyone they think can help
their case, I would have thought the key arguments in this case
would be over "indecency", not over "naturist" behaviour. For
good or ill, "naturism" is not a defence against charges under
PoCA (etc), so Sue's evidence of acceptability or otherwise as
"naturist photographs" only tells half the story, IMO. While
context can be important in some situations (for example, context
was a major reason why the BBFC asked for a cut in a naturist
video a couple of years ago), it cannot be the whole story.
Equally, there can be reasons why a naturist organisation might
well decline to publish an image that was not "indecent".
To quote the relevant sentence of R v Oliver in full:
Quote++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As it seems to us, neither nakedness in a legitimate setting, nor
the surreptitious procuring of an image, gives rise, of itself,
to a pornographic image.
------------------------Unquote
Sue states that it was clear to her that some images had resulted
from what I would presume to be "surreptitious procuring". Yet
it also appears from Sue's post that the images were of
"nakedness in a legitimate setting", so that - deliberately or
otherwise - Sue was arguing for the defence if she gave evidence
that the imagery was of a naturist environment.
That is not to say that surreptitious images of taken in a
naturist setting cannot be indecent. For example, in R v
Graham-Kerr the defendant WAS convicted.
Mike Paley hasn't said on what basis he and others were standing
by to give evidence for the defence. Was this character
evidence? Or evidence concerning the indecency (or otherwise) of
the images?
Is anyone going to let us know something more about the images?
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Tim Forcer
> I have no idea about the court case that you are referring to,
> but to launch a personal attack in this way on an individual
> on a public message board is absolutely out of order.
Seems to me it happens all the time?
> That it should be someone
> with the integrity of Sue Piper is disgraceful.
Don't forget, CCBN itself has declared Sue guilty of bringing
naturism into disrepute! I know nothing of the basis for that
charge, but I was completely gob-smacked when I heard about it.
However, I agree that it would have been helpful to have had a
relatively unbiased report on the court case first.
Stephen Doerr
news:TZFoc.2411$pi.19...@news-text.cableinet.net:
>
> "pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
> news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
>> Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
> And has R V Peters been reinstated to CCBN as well?
Is 'R V Peters' the name of a person? Or the name of the case (i.e. 'Regina
versus Peters')?
--
Steve
sp...@shabden.co.uk
"Richard Burnham" <c...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:OsCySLC6q2oAFwZ$@not.disclosed...
> --
Sorry if I mislead earlier - what I said that was that the photographs if
they had been presented for publication were not of a nature that if I were
on the publications board of BN magazine that I would have used them.
I doubt that they would have been presented as the parents of these youths
did not know about the photographs at the time they were being taken so had
not given permission. It is my understanding that when the youths told
parents/adults about the photographs - visits to one of the defendants homes
that the investigation took place. I was not involved until August last
year and was shown 48 photographs and a VHS video.
sp...@shabden.co.uk
news:gas6a0l9lift0eg02...@4ax.com...
the person who had organised the meetings at Waterworld and as such had a
record of the dates of attendance and numbers because all tickets have to be
purchased in advance.
The statement I gave to the police on 6th August last year I do have a copy
of, but am not sure how much of it should be disclosed as the naturist
element was ruled as irrelevant by the judge. In my statement I did not say
that any of the photographs were indecent, only that there were some that I
was not comfortable with.
I only have information on what I saw and what I said, not the rest of the
circumstances except that the police told me that the individuals were under
18 and the photographs were taken without knowledge of the parents.
I did say in my statement that there were some photographs I was not
comfortable with. And there were some photographs in which attention is
drawn to genitalia. In one photograph taken in a sauna an adult male had
his arm around the young male and appeared to be looking at his genitals. I
was informed that they were not related and that the young male was under
18.
The judge ruled that any evidence relating to naturist norms was not
admissible evidence - it is certainly not my responsibility that the police
and CPS did not do their homework on this matter. The only evidence I was
allowed to give was whether the actual setting i.e. a sauna was an
appropriate place to take a photograph.
Quite honestly it was a waste of my time and loss of earnings - and if
anyone tells you you are adequately compensated forget it.
sp...@shabden.co.uk
news:uPJoc.2637$EI2....@doctor.cableinet.net...
material presented to me.
I have nothing to be ashamed of.
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
bt...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> What qualifications do they have if any to judge these photos if any?
>
> They should now hang their heads in shame after the not guilty verdict.
>
alleged and offence was committed, the witnesses called were there to
express THEIR expert opinion on the evidence that they were presented
with. The verdict of the jury is about whether an offence was committed
not about whether they believed the witness's evidence.
Journalist-North
"Stephen Doerr" <REVERSEdo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94E892E714EDAst...@127.0.0.1...
-----
Noted, but then again the post subject did not refer to " R v Peters" in the
case name format. So...??? Maybe Mike or Sue can clarify.
Journalist
Journalist-North
> The University of Southampton, UK
>
> The University is not responsible for my opinions
>
Send a copy of this over to Burnham... he doesn't seem to like when I do it.
Journalist
Richard Burnham
sp...@shabden.co.uk writes
Thanks for the clarification.
Witnesses have to answer the questions put to them truthfully (as they
judge the truth) in court. It is the court that makes the decision on
the defendant's guilt, not the witness. Witnesses cannot be held
responsible for the court's decision, and the comments made about
Suzanne are disgraceful.
It would be very helpful if we could get a more complete account of Mr
Peters and this (and any other) case involving him.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Richard Burnham
Journalist-North <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>"Tim Forcer" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:gas6a0l9lift0eg02...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:29:20 +0100, <sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>--------
>
>Send a copy of this over to Burnham... he doesn't seem to like when I do it.
>
>Journalist
>
Tim Forcer's article is about likely legal arguments in a case about
which we have heard very little detail. It has no bearing on the points
I made.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
sp...@shabden.co.uk
news:yQLoc.2658$Er3.22...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Stephen Doerr" <REVERSEdo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E892E714EDAst...@127.0.0.1...
> > "Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> > news:TZFoc.2411$pi.19...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> >
> > >
> > > "pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
> > > news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
> > >> Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
> >
> > > And has R V Peters been reinstated to CCBN as well?
> >
> > Is 'R V Peters' the name of a person? Or the name of the case (i.e.
> 'Regina
> > versus Peters')?
> >
> > Steve
>
> -
While we are on the subject of reinstatement - the last time Peters was a
member of BN was in 200. He tried to rejoin after his arrest and at that
time he told BN why he was rejoining - ie he had been arrested. His
application to rejoin was refused.
The other person - Hallet - was last a member in 2002 and has not rejoined
since.
--
Suzanne Piper
Naturist Life is the naturist magazine to read
www.shabden.co.uk
suz...@shabden.co.uk
Tim Forcer
her involvement in this case. It seems to me to be to be
entirely reasonable, and I see no justification in it for
derogatory comments about her.
> The judge ruled that any evidence relating to naturist norms
> was not admissible evidence
Then, IMO, the defence didn't do its job properly in ensuring the
judge was fully aware of case law, since the Court of Appeal have
ruled that nakedness in a legitimate setting is not, of itself,
pornographic. (This overturned the recommendations produced by
their advisory body, which thought that simple nudity WAS
indecent.) Therefore, IMO, it _can_ be important for a defendant
to establish whether or not the nudity in an image was
"legitimate" within the Appeal Court ruling limits.
> - it is certainly not my responsibility that the police
> and CPS did not do their homework on this matter.
Agreed.
Fred H
news:sbLoc.123$E51...@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
> "Tim Forcer" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:gas6a0l9lift0eg02...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:29:20 +0100, <sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > ... Some of the photographs I saw were obviously taken
> > > without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
> > > within a caravan and out through an awning.
> The statement I gave to the police on 6th August last year I do have a
copy
> of, but am not sure how much of it should be disclosed as the naturist
> element was ruled as irrelevant by the judge. In my statement I did not
say
> that any of the photographs were indecent, only that there were some that
I
> was not comfortable with.
>
> I only have information on what I saw and what I said, not the rest of the
> circumstances except that the police told me that the individuals were
under
> 18 and the photographs were taken without knowledge of the parents.
Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. To me, some images are indecent,
others are not and others might be. Photographs in the latter category can
be created by accident, and in this case it is logical to examine the
circumstances under which they were taken to determine the motives of the
photograper. It's easy to take an indecent photograph by mistake - it's also
very easy to delete it if this was not your intention.
The facts that these images were obtained in a clandestine manner and were
not deleted suggests to me that the photographer was dangerously stupid (his
actions could cause real harm to the subjects) or worse. I'm glad to hear
that the CCBN bounced him, if only for stupidity, but it was up to the jury
to decide whether there was reasonable doubt about his criminality.
Malcolm Boura
<sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote:
> I was asked to give evidence as to whether the photographs were acceptable
> as naturist photographs. The photographs I saw I would certainly not have
> published in BN - it is a matter of opinion. Some of the photographs I saw
> were obviously taken without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
> within a caravan and out through an awning.
> The evidence I understood I was to be giving was that naturist do not take
> covert photographs, no do they take photographs of minors without consent of
> the adult responsible for those minors.
> My understanding was that the parents of these young people had not given
> permission.
The Vice President (Lord Justice Rose), Mr Justice Gibbs and Mr Justice
Davis), Court Of Appeal, November 21, 2002.
"As it seems to us, neither nakedness in a legitimate setting, nor the
surreptitious procuring of an image, gives rise, of itself, to a pornographic
image."
Thus I conclude that Suzanne was being asked the wrong question. They
were not acceptable by naturist standards due to the circumstances of
taking them but from what little we have been told here the actual
content probably was.
[snip]
--
Malcolm Boura, NUFF coordinator.
NUFF http://www.nuff.org.uk/ is the FAQ for the uk.rec.naturist newsgroup.
Please read before posting to the group.
It is the comprehensive www source of UK naturist information.
Malcolm Boura
"Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> The age issue is only material in the case of charges under the PoCA because
> it is one of the two necessary elements for a conviction. ( under 18 - and -
> that the photo is "indecent")
For making the photograph it was under 16 at the time of the incident
but under 18 for offences since the Sexual Offences Act came into force
at the beginning of this month.
Since the police have presumably been in possession of the
photos for some time, not the defendant, then again the age
limit would have been 16.
Presumably the tabloids, libraries and everyone else with photographs
should before the first of May have been through them all and destroyed
all the photographs of 16 and 17 year olds that might be "indecent".
Since the Court of Appeal has made it pretty clear that "indecent"
means some sexual element then any tabloid page 3 photos of a 16
or 17 year old are logically now illegal.
Journalist-North
"Malcolm Boura" <nu...@armage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b4d48fa...@armage.demon.co.uk...
> In message <RJNoc.2756$Rp4.22...@news-text.cableinet.net>
> "Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The age issue is only material in the case of charges under the PoCA
because
> > it is one of the two necessary elements for a conviction. ( under 18 -
and -
> > that the photo is "indecent")
>
> For making the photograph it was under 16 at the time of the incident
> but under 18 for offences since the Sexual Offences Act came into force
> at the beginning of this month.
>
> Since the police have presumably been in possession of the
> photos for some time, not the defendant, then again the age
> limit would have been 16.
>
> Presumably the tabloids, libraries and everyone else with photographs
> should before the first of May have been through them all and destroyed
> all the photographs of 16 and 17 year olds that might be "indecent".
> Since the Court of Appeal has made it pretty clear that "indecent"
> means some sexual element then any tabloid page 3 photos of a 16
> or 17 year old are logically now illegal.
>
-------
Malcolm, I have had that same discussion with some other interested parties
and the legal position is entirely unclear for the following reasons:
When the PoCA came into force there was no retrospective cut-off date prior
to it's coming into force for previously existing photos of under 16's. Now,
with the SOA likewise there is no explicit, or even implicit, retrospective
exemption for images of under 18s that existed prior to May 2004 and that
could, in either case, be judged "indecent".
In US practice when similar provisions to the PoCA were enacted respecting
recordkeeping there was a cut-off date. One can only presume that the
omission in the UK was intentional. Interestingly I have, with my
journalist's hat on, enquired of the CPS about charging decisions in that
circumstance and they actively declined to answer the question (both at the
national and local levels). ["...Every case is evaluated on it's
merits..."]. There are also no specific exemptions in either the PoCA or the
SOA on the type of holdings (private collections of a genuine artistic
nature; archival; museums; libraries) or the purpose of the holdings
(cultural, historic, scientific or other reasons). Draw your own
conclusions.
US law also does not deal with "indecency" as an intermediate level of
objectionability (as does the PoCA) they move from innocent to
pornographic/obscene in one step. This is presumably because "indecency" is
constitutionally protected free speech and obscenity is not.
-----
USCODE: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Sec. 2257
Sec. 2257. - Record keeping requirements
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or
other matter which -
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of
actual sexually explicit conduct; and...
-----
That question in the UK, hinging on "indecency" depicted in an image and the
age of the person at the time and relating to the date the image was first
created, is going to have to wait for case law I am afraid. One might even
question very old photos such as those of Alice Liddell shot by Charles
Dodson in the late 1800's and other similar materials which were quite legal
when made. IF someone complains that they are indecent...can a charge be
laid? Just as 16 yo P-3 girls were photographed under the previously
existing PoCA stated age.The immediate question really is: Should one
destroy them now, if there is any suspicion that they may be "indecent"...
or wait? The prudent course of action, were there is the slightest doubt, is
to at least refrain from publishing or distributing them. However, note also
that mere possession is a criminal offence under the PoCA / SOA. Given that
a large accumulation could exist - for cultural, historic, scientific or
other reasons, too important for those purposes to destroy, very quietly
exporting them is also an option.
Not only is there no authorative answer for this one...but there is no
answer at all except to presume that the law stands EXACTLY as written
Journalist
Journalist-North
"Fred H" <not...@example.com> wrote in message
news:40a3a54f$0$28312$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. To me, some images are indecent,
> others are not and others might be. Photographs in the latter category can
> be created by accident, and in this case it is logical to examine the
> circumstances under which they were taken to determine the motives of the
> photograper. It's easy to take an indecent photograph by mistake - it's
also
> very easy to delete it if this was not your intention.
>
> The facts that these images were obtained in a clandestine manner and were
> not deleted suggests to me that the photographer was dangerously stupid
(his
> actions could cause real harm to the subjects) or worse. I'm glad to hear
> that the CCBN bounced him, if only for stupidity, but it was up to the
jury
> to decide whether there was reasonable doubt about his criminality.
>
--------
Three points:
* With respect to "indecency" and the PoCA the House of Lords ruled in an
appeals case some years ago that the motivation, the "criminal intent" aka
Mens Rea, of the photographer [or anyone else involved] has no bearing on
the indecency issue in determining criminal guilt for purposes of the PoCA.
This applies only to photography [not other kinds of art works] which is all
the PoCA concerns itself with. The legal presumption is that the
photographer intended to create an indecent photograph where one is found by
the jury to be so. There is no way to rely on the claim of innocent creation
of such a photograph as a defence. PoCA is a statute of strict liability.
The same applies to other persons involved and to other acts that the PoCA
refers to: making; permitting to be made; possession; distribution; ect. [of
indecent photographs of a child [now] under 18]. The issue of indecency
itself, however, is left to the jury to decide.
* Except for the recent addition to British law of the SOA there is no
distinction in law between covert (clandestine) and overt photography absent
a reasonable expectation of privacy. Before the SOA came into effect there
was no distinction at all. If there were to be such a separation, or some
kind of presumption of criminality, between covert and overt photography
there would have to be a wholesale shutting down of security cameras in this
country. It has been estimated that the average person in a British city is
now photographed 300, or more, times a day - almost all of it by covert
surveillance. Also think mobile phone cameras; wristwatch cameras; lapel
button cameras; cameras in binoculars; cameras in spectacle frames; ad
infinitum.The claim of perceived harm, or even invasion of privacy, by way
of covert photography is a non-starter EXCEPT in the very limited
circumstances covered by the SOA.
* Use of photos taken in public places and in certain other circumstances
even in less then public places, WITHOUT A RELEASE OR PERMISSION OF THE
SUBJECT, is likewise virtually unrestricted in British law, and generally
subject only to four possible civil tort claims [commercial appropriation;
confidentiality; false light; and ridicule].
The torts individually:
COMMERCIAL APPROPRIATION: The term commercial appropriation does NOT
necessarily include the mere making, selling or publishing of a photograph
unless it is somehow altered, in fact or in context, to include what may
appear to be an endorsement of a commercial product or enterprise. Editorial
publishing takes account of the context of words with pictures - thus, if I
shoot, or anyone else does, an unreleased photo on a naturist beach and use
it to illustrate a written story about naturism in a newspaper, or magazine,
or on a website, no "commercial appropriation" occurs. If I stick, however,
it in an advert for a naturist B&B - and attach some text to it such as
"Stay at Aunt Sue's B&B" commercial appropriation may [just possibly] be
claimed.
CONFIDENTIALITY: There is no duty of confidentiality that arises in taking
photos in a public place because there is no general expectation of privacy
in such places. In [Naomi] Campbell v Mirror [newspaper] recently heard on
appeal in the Lords the issue was not the photo that was published, in
isolation, but rather the combination of the photo with the written
disclosure of her drug treatment. The case, as it is now completed, held
that the Mirror had an implied duty of confidentiality when disclosing
medical issues concerning her which [medical issues] would otherwise be
confidential. The photo itself showed her leaving the drug treatment clinic.
Under UK copyright law, too, a limited duty of confidentiality arises but
ONLY when shooting photos commissioned for "private and domestic" purposes,
e.g a portrait or a wedding. No such duty arises otherwise except by mutual
agreement.
FALSE LIGHT: Taking a photo on a nude beach when someone is there
voluntarily and publishing it, or using it some other way, maintaining only
that it is a "photo taken on a nude beach" does not raise an issue of false
light. If it is an accurate portrayal of an event / scene [someone nude on a
nude beach] then no false light can exist.
RIDICULE: Usually only occurs intentionally as does liable in the written
form. In the case of images usually by intentionally derogatory treatment of
the image itself. e.g. If someone does something unusual, stupid, or even
outrageous, in public, as in the TV show "Dumb Ass", and a photo is
published of the act it does not rise to the level of ridicule if it is an
accurate portrayal of the event - - - and even if ridicule follows.
Journalist
Fred H
Wow! A long reply, but I think we're basically in agreement - this guy may
not be guilty of a criminal offence based on the information posted here and
your analysis above (as the jury found). He may also be morally innocent - I
wasn't there, but the facts as presented here don't look good. As far as I'm
concerned (and presumably the CCBN committee and most other naturists), the
last thing we need is someone hiding in the bushes taking pictures of
children.
Journalist-North
>
> Wow! A long reply, but I think we're basically in agreement - this guy may
> not be guilty of a criminal offence based on the information posted here
and
> your analysis above (as the jury found). He may also be morally innocent -
I
> wasn't there, but the facts as presented here don't look good. As far as
I'm
> concerned (and presumably the CCBN committee and most other naturists),
the
> last thing we need is someone hiding in the bushes taking pictures of
> children.
>
--------
Quite a bit shorter reply to address that problem. I have long advocated
naturists carrying cameras - even £3.50 disposable ones - and taking
pictures of those "characters" hiding in the bushes or skulking in the
dunes. If they are up to no good they will soon get the clue and if it keeps
happening whenever they show up they will find other haunts and / or
hobbies. If they get confrontational or violent they can be arrested. Simple
really.
First, though, naturists need to understand that they have no right to
privacy in a public place (beach, forest, ect) and then they need to get
over their pathological fear of cameras - by turning the camera to their
advantage.
Journalist
David Looser
news:b4d48fa...@armage.demon.co.uk...
> Since the Court of Appeal has made it pretty clear that "indecent"
> means some sexual element then any tabloid page 3 photos of a 16
> or 17 year old are logically now illegal.
>
And the sexual element in a page 3 photo is...?
David.
Tim Forcer
legal specifics, including:
> ... The legal presumption is that the
> photographer intended to create an indecent photograph
> where one is found by the jury to be so.
AIUI, innocent creation of an indecent image only becomes an
offence at the point where the photographer realises that the
image is indecent. The Graham-Kerr judgement held that intention
was irrelevant to the determination of "indecency". So, a
naturist photographer who discovers that shhee has produced an
indecent image inadvertently can be safe IF they destroy the
image on discovering its indecency (at least, I assume that's the
case?). Equally, someone who sets out to create an indecent
image, but fails, has not committed an offence. Should an
inadvertent indecent photograph be discovered to be indecent by
someone else (eg a Boots photolab technician), then there would
be a case to answer and, as Journalist-North says, the offence is
absolute. Even so, if the claim of inadvertence was believable,
I would have thought the most likely verdict, should it get that
far, would be some sort of discharge. (I think a comparison can
be made with drunk driving, where establishing the fact of being
in charge of a motor vehicle while having more than however much
it is alcohol in one's system, means one is unambigously and
absolutely guilty of the offence, but the penalty is determined
after taking into consideration any special circumstances. As
opposed to some other traffic offences where special
circumstances can be used to establish innocence.)
> There is no way to rely on the claim of innocent creation
> of such a photograph as a defence.
If the photograph is still in existence. In the absence of the
photograph, there is no evidence that it was indecent. (At
least, I assume simple reporting of the image's content is not
sufficient for a court?)
> .... The issue of indecency itself, however, is left to the
> jury to decide.
Except that most cases aren't tried by a jury. A significant
number are dealt with by cautions. Many (perhaps even the
majority) of the rest are heard by magistrates. (Home Office
figures for 1999 and 2000 show just over 20% of cases are
resolved by cautions and about 40% result in prison sentences).
> * Except for the recent addition to British law of the SOA
> there is no distinction in law between covert (clandestine)
> and overt photography absent a reasonable expectation of
> privacy.
But the SOA surely means that clandestine indecent photographs
taken in some situations would be prima facie evidence of the
offence of voyeurism?
Tim Forcer
> When the PoCA came into force there was no retrospective
> cut-off date prior to it's coming into force for previously
> existing photos of under 16's. Now, with the SOA likewise
> there is no explicit, or even implicit, retrospective exemption
> for images of under 18s that existed prior to May 2004 and
> that could, in either case, be judged "indecent".
IMO, a senior court would find that there was an implicit
INCLUSION of pre-existing images. That is because the original
clause in the Bill had an exclusion for such images:
"This section does not apply to photographs or pseudo-photographs
taken or made before the commencement of this section."
However, along with all the other original and amended
exclusions, except the "marriage" exclusion which appeared at a
late stage in many other clauses of the Bill, the pre-existence
exemption was removed before the Bill was enacted:
<http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#45>
At the moment, I can't unearth the debate on the amendment which
removed the exemption, but I remember reading it. In summary,
IIRC, it amounted to a decision that including the exemption
allowed an almost unarguable defence where the date of production
of the image could not be established, and this was thought to be
unworkable for the investigating and prosecuting bodies. There
was also a suggestion that processing new images to look as if
they'd been taken before enactment would be easy and common.
I believe that, where the exact interpretation of a law is called
into question in a case, a senior court will review records of
Parliamentary debates so as to determine the intentions of the
legislators. But in this situation there cannot be any
ambiguity. If the subject of an indecent photograph was under 18
at the time the photograph was taken, or, where it is not
possible to determine the actual age of the subject at the time,
where the subject APPEARS TO BE under 18, then whoever made or
owns or distributed that photograph can be prosecuted.
HTH - make sure you have no fading copies of tabloids featuring
16-year-old stunnas on page 3!
Tim Forcer
>
> Malcolm Boura wrote:
>>
>> Since the Court of Appeal has made it pretty clear that
>> "indecent" means some sexual element then any tabloid
>> page 3 photos of a 16 or 17 year old are logically now
>> illegal.
>
> And the sexual element in a page 3 photo is...?
In the eye of the beholder?
Fred H
I think I've heard your camera idea before, but have never tried it.
Personally I have no problem with cameras - if someone wants to photograph
me, fine! If some pervert wishes to photograph me then they must be very sad
indeed, but in principle, fine! But I'm an adult and I've made that decision
for myself; it's different for a child and that's the issue with THIS case
(and I wouldn't dispute that you see this too, although the thread has
rambled!).
It got me wondering last night - where would I draw the line at indecency?
Where does the public in general draw the line? What "the law" says doesn't
matter - it's what the magistrate, judge and jury have to say. I guess Sue
said she was "uncomfortable" with some pictures, but not that they were
indecent, and I can see her problem. A few people would describe Sue's
Christmas cards as indecent, (although not the recipients!)
The only criteria I could come up with are based on intent, but that's
highly unsatisfactory. To a paedophile a nude (or non-nude) picture of a
child might well be indecent - to a naturist (or it's parents) it's
normality.
Steve Doerr
> Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
Short report on the case at <http://tinyurl.com/3bzzb> =
<http://icsolihull.icnetwork.co.uk/news/local/tm_objectid=14240108&method=full&siteid=91411&headline=naturist-off-photo-rap-name_page.html>
--
Steve
Brian
"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto re...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1b0d9a74...@news.demon.co.uk...
What expert opinion? qualifications please.
Journalist-North
(snip)
>
> Personally I have no problem with cameras - if someone wants to photograph
> me, fine! If some pervert wishes to photograph me then they must be very
sad
> indeed, but in principle, fine! But I'm an adult and I've made that
decision
> for myself; it's different for a child and that's the issue with THIS case
> (and I wouldn't dispute that you see this too, although the thread has
> rambled!).
+++ I have no problem being photographed either, and I too am a photographer
with published works over time as well as appearing on tele with other
naturists. The pervs can take my picture but they won't see very much - LOL
>
> It got me wondering last night - where would I draw the line at indecency?
> Where does the public in general draw the line? What "the law" says
doesn't
> matter - it's what the magistrate, judge and jury have to say. I guess Sue
> said she was "uncomfortable" with some pictures, but not that they were
> indecent, and I can see her problem. A few people would describe Sue's
> Christmas cards as indecent, (although not the recipients!)
>
> The only criteria I could come up with are based on intent, but that's
> highly unsatisfactory. To a paedophile a nude (or non-nude) picture of a
> child might well be indecent - to a naturist (or it's parents) it's
> normality.
>
+++ And there, precisely. lies the problem with the PoCA in failing to
provide a definition, guideline or any other thing to determine what the law
[as opposed to any ordinary citizen] might consider indecent. Everyone,
every police officer, every prosecutor in the CPS, every judge, and every
member of a potential jury will understandably have a different concept of
the word. Absolutely none of those can know, with any certainty, if the law
has been broken.
Here is a test for you... Is this photo indecent?
N. B. Note that there is NO nudity at all and NO overt sexual content...but
does the image content in and of itself [the subject?; the relative age of
the subject?; the pose?; the prop used?; the setting?; a combination of
these?] somehow make it indecent? Would the intent of the photographer make
any difference to whether it is innocent or indecent? What about, not the
photographer who may have had no ill intent, but someone other then the
photographer that came into possession of the image (implying a sort of
"thought crime" on their part)?
IMPORTANT: This test image is safe to view but you may find it somehow
"disturbing", or as Sue did in the case at hand perhaps be "uncomfortable"
with it, on the other hand you may find it merely "amusing", but it vividly
demonstrates some of the problems with the PoCA and British law on the
subject.
http://www.sendpix.com/albums/04051406/1fjo306aji/
Click the thumbnail to see the larger image.
Journalist
Richard Burnham
We don't seem to have enough information about the actual case to know
what evidence the court used to make its decision that John Peters was
not guilty. All the kilobytes of legal talk here appear to be purely
speculative in the context of this case, and I'd take most of it as an
example of the blind leading the blind anyway.
The complaint that was raised in this thread was to do with the
defendant and naturism. This has nothing to do with the law. A
photograph, or the circumstances in which it was taken, could be
perfectly legal but still unacceptable to naturists. Without knowing
more about the case, it is perfectly possible that Mr Peters although
acquitted is an unfit person to be a member of BN, and *if it is true*
that the pictures were dubious because they were taken surreptitiously,
then I would say that he is an unfit person and BN is well within its
rights to exclude him. Not because of the photographs, but because of
the behaviour. (Note the proviso, because the facts appear to be
unclear.)
I have said before in other contexts that the law is, and should be,
only the outer envelope of allowable behaviour. Most of our everyday
actions are (or should be) more closely circumscribed by other things -
respect for others, accepted standards of politeness and etiquette, and
the standards of any groups we choose to belong to, including BN and the
general classification of 'naturist'. None of this has anything to do
with the law, and in an ideal world the law would have nothing to do
with any of this.
It was suggested that Mr Peters may have a related previous conviction -
does anyone know whether this is true or false?
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Richard Burnham
Journalist-North <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>Quite a bit shorter reply to address that problem. I have long advocated
>naturists carrying cameras - even £3.50 disposable ones - and taking
>pictures of those "characters" hiding in the bushes or skulking in the
>dunes. If they are up to no good they will soon get the clue and if it keeps
>happening whenever they show up they will find other haunts and / or
>hobbies. If they get confrontational or violent they can be arrested. Simple
>really.
I agree with this. Mobile phones with cameras should be very useful for
this.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Fred H
> > It got me wondering last night - where would I draw the line at
indecency?
> > Where does the public in general draw the line? What "the law" says
> doesn't
> > matter - it's what the magistrate, judge and jury have to say. I guess
Sue
> > said she was "uncomfortable" with some pictures, but not that they were
> > indecent, and I can see her problem. A few people would describe Sue's
> > Christmas cards as indecent, (although not the recipients!)
> >
> > The only criteria I could come up with are based on intent, but that's
> > highly unsatisfactory. To a paedophile a nude (or non-nude) picture of a
> > child might well be indecent - to a naturist (or it's parents) it's
> > normality.
> >
> +++ And there, precisely. lies the problem with the PoCA in failing to
> provide a definition, guideline or any other thing to determine what the
law
> [as opposed to any ordinary citizen] might consider indecent. Everyone,
> every police officer, every prosecutor in the CPS, every judge, and every
> member of a potential jury will understandably have a different concept of
> the word. Absolutely none of those can know, with any certainty, if the
law
> has been broken.
I understand the problem, but how much more of a problem it would be if it
DID specify what indecent meant? As it is, we've got the "I know it when I
see it" criteria, which is probably the reason Peters isn't behind bars.
OTOH, if it said nude==indecent we'd all be in trouble for no good reason.
If you say "is this photograph rule/obscene/distateful/pornographic/would
you hang it on your wall" to someone you'll get a different answer depending
on whether it would result in the photographer going to prision.
> Here is a test for you... Is this photo indecent?
>
> http://www.sendpix.com/albums/04051406/1fjo306aji/
>
Good choice!
If it was my daughter, I wouldn't be amused! (okay, I don't have a daughter,
but you know what I mean). If said daughter was now an adult she'd make up
her own mind. Would I send someone to prison for taking it? Nope. If it was
an adult and a duck it'd be amusing.
Journalist-North
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:53, Journalist-North wrote at length about
> legal specifics, including:
>
> > ... The legal presumption is that the
> > photographer intended to create an indecent photograph
> > where one is found by the jury to be so.
>
> AIUI, innocent creation of an indecent image only becomes an
> offence at the point where the photographer realises that the
> image is indecent. The Graham-Kerr judgement held that intention
> was irrelevant to the determination of "indecency". So, a
> naturist photographer who discovers that shhee has produced an
> indecent image inadvertently can be safe IF they destroy the
> image on discovering its indecency (at least, I assume that's the
> case?).
+++ Probably true as long as the lab processing the film doesn't discover it
first. That is the genesis of many cases. Digital is another matter and with
it's own technical problems (see below)
Equally, someone who sets out to create an indecent
> image, but fails, has not committed an offence.
+++ True, PoCA does not address an "attempt" to comit the crime.
Should an
> inadvertent indecent photograph be discovered to be indecent by
> someone else (eg a Boots photolab technician), then there would
> be a case to answer and, as Journalist-North says, the offence is
> absolute.
+++ Noted above
Even so, if the claim of inadvertence was believable,
> I would have thought the most likely verdict, should it get that
> far, would be some sort of discharge.
+++ The issue of the quantity of images is a mitigating factor and can be
heard as evidence. In fact it will be considered in a CPS charging decision
as well. One image in hundreds is less likely to attract a conviction or
even a charge. Many images are more likely to do so.
>
> > There is no way to rely on the claim of innocent creation
> > of such a photograph as a defence.
>
> If the photograph is still in existence. In the absence of the
> photograph, there is no evidence that it was indecent. (At
> least, I assume simple reporting of the image's content is not
> sufficient for a court?)
+++ True. but may still be heard if the witness [or more then one] has first
hand knowledge that possession existed at some time... even though images
have been destroyed in some forms they may still exist in others. That is
why digital images cause some particular problems because they can continue
reside in computers in ordinarily inaccessable places even after deletion
has been attempted from the normal file... and are often recovered as
evidence of prior possession. They may even, with digital cameras, continue
to reside, as well as be recoverable, on the camera storage card after
deletion. There need only be a "latent" image to secure a conviction.
>
> > .... The issue of indecency itself, however, is left to the
> > jury to decide.
>
> Except that most cases aren't tried by a jury. A significant
> number are dealt with by cautions. Many (perhaps even the
> majority) of the rest are heard by magistrates. (Home Office
> figures for 1999 and 2000 show just over 20% of cases are
> resolved by cautions and about 40% result in prison sentences).
+++ That IS a problem. The truly innocent photogrpaher is better to refuse
the caution and demand a jury trial where the option is there to do so.
Failing that, a conviction exists with a caution or magistrate's hearing and
the probability of going on the SO register even where no other penalty
[jail or fine or both] is attached.
>
> > * Except for the recent addition to British law of the SOA
> > there is no distinction in law between covert (clandestine)
> > and overt photography absent a reasonable expectation of
> > privacy.
>
> But the SOA surely means that clandestine indecent photographs
> taken in some situations would be prima facie evidence of the
> offence of voyeurism?
+++ Not necesarily. The SOA only defines it as voyeurism when the photo
involves someone in a place / situation where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and then goes on to name such places (in Sec 67 and
68). It would NOT apply, nor would it be a criminal offence, in the open
(e.g. hiding in the dunes and observing, or taking photos of, naturists on a
beach). Sec 67 also hinges on a sexual motive (Mens Rea again) and, thus, an
image may be claimed to be an "innocent creation" - unlike the PoCA. There
is also something called "innocent [or incidental] inclusion", possibly a
defence, where a private act in a private place is NOT the primary intention
of the image but merely something that happened to be in the frame when the
shutter was released. That concept comes from copyright law in that innocent
[incidental] inclusion of a copyrighted work in a new work is not infringing
of the copyright of the original - it would be nearly impossibe to
demonstrate Mens Rea - thus no voyeurism. Especially true with hand-held
cameras as opposed to some sort of fixed (installed) camera.
----
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm
"..68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if
the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be
expected to provide privacy, and- ..."
----
+++ Case law on privacy (UK) shows that privacy and the expectation of
privacy occurs in degrees. One can seek privacy in one's home by closing the
curtains. Leaving them open reduces privacy expectations (in the eyes of the
law). Using a public toilet and closing the stall door implies a privacy
expectation... leaving the stall door open when it might otherwise be closed
reduces the privacy expectation. And so forth. Being nude inside your house
[a structure] (SOA) engenders an expectation of privacy - being nude in your
garden does not. In public places there is presumptively no expectation of
privacy at all. Campbell v Mirror, or other recent cases such as Douglas v
People Magazine, or the SOA, have not changed this in the least.
This is actually sometimes refered to as "the photographer's right" because
much case law originates with photography and from which the various
photographer's "rules" ["rights"] have developed. Inclusive of the "Public
Place Rule(s) [there are 2]"; and the "Private Place Invitee" rule. These
are inferred rights rather then explicitly laid down - photography is
inferredly permitted by omission of prohibitions in law, except for specific
prohibitions in particular places and circumstances such as the SOA now
contains. Owners of private property can prohibit photography in or on their
property but they can not prohibit photography of any part of their private
property that can be seen from a public place and where the photographer may
position himself.
In the starkist and most brutal form of statement: Members of the public, in
a public place, have no legal standing to prohibit or prevent their image
from being captured [by way of photography] by rule...or by force.
>
> Tim Forcer
Journalist
Journalist-North
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:57, David Looser wrote:
>
> >
> > Malcolm Boura wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the Court of Appeal has made it pretty clear that
> >> "indecent" means some sexual element then any tabloid
> >> page 3 photos of a 16 or 17 year old are logically now
> >> illegal.
> >
> > And the sexual element in a page 3 photo is...?
>
> In the eye of the beholder?
>
------
More precisely in the eyes of the court and the jury.
Journalist
Journalist-North
>
> I understand the problem, but how much more of a problem it would be if it
> DID specify what indecent meant? As it is, we've got the "I know it when I
> see it" criteria, which is probably the reason Peters isn't behind bars.
> OTOH, if it said nude==indecent we'd all be in trouble for no good reason.
>
> If you say "is this photograph rule/obscene/distateful/pornographic/would
> you hang it on your wall" to someone you'll get a different answer
depending
> on whether it would result in the photographer going to prision.
>
----------
In fact, Fred, there are some tests - they are just not set out in the law,
though they might have been, such as...
* Is the child "posed" or is it a candid photo? (e.g only a holiday snap)
* Is child, or do they seem to be, "distressed"? (are they apparently
distressed by the presence of the photographer or the circumstance of the
photograph? Just having a good cry probably doesn't count.)
* Is the child engaged in a sexual activity?
* Is the child pictured in context? (nude in a naturist context (OK) or nude
in a non-nude context (more questionable))
* Is the child pictured alone or with other children and adults and in
context?
* Is the "focus", the main and central purpose of the image, one that
appears to draw attention to the sexual organs?
* Does the image appear to be for the purpose of arousing a sexual reaction
in the viewer?
These questions of "fact on balance" were all applied IN COURT as tests to
the case of HM Customs and Excise v Tower Productions when Customs seized an
(allegedly indecent) naturist video on importation to the UK. Tower was
found not guilty and the video ordered by the court released [from Customs
impound] and returned to them. AFAIK these tests, or something very similar,
still serve as the HMCE guidance on similar materials, where there had been
no objective internal (HMCE) guidance prior to the Tower case.
Interestingly, though I haven't mentioned it before, under the PoCA nudity
is not the only criteria for a finding of indecency. You will note that the
objective questions, above, do not even specify it as a primary criteria.
The question, it seems, is that if HM Customs and Excise can do it (devise
reasonable guidance) why can't the rest of the legal system?
On balance, too, the test image I posted, is NOT "indecent" if these tests
are applied to it... which is exactly what I did when I selected it for that
purpose.
Journalist
Brian
"Steve Doerr" <REVERSEdo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94E97C4CEA4F6st...@127.0.0.1...
> mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk (pmailkeey) wrote in
news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net:
>
> > Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
I have never came accross a debate like this before. No one seems to know
anything about the case yet they all seem to know the answers.
The barrack room lawyers seem to have set things straight though what a load
of waffle.
All I can say is with friends like Sue Piper and co who needs enemies. I
think Burnham would like to see the guy hanged
David Looser
David.
David Looser
news:RP7pc.30798$IY1....@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
This looks like a classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. Do YOU
know anything, or is your abusive comment about Sue gratuitous?
David.
>
>
>
Jerry.
> "Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6M4pc.3630$087.33...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > Here is a test for you... Is this photo indecent?
> >
> > http://www.sendpix.com/albums/04051406/1fjo306aji/
> >
>
> Good choice!
>
> If it was my daughter, I wouldn't be amused! (okay, I don't have a
daughter,
> but you know what I mean). If said daughter was now an adult she'd make up
> her own mind. Would I send someone to prison for taking it? Nope. If it
was
> an adult and a duck it'd be amusing.
>
What about if the child was naked, in or out of a naturist context ?
My point is, there are sometime innocent images that when taken out of
context can be a problem, a photo that has a naked male child frozen in time
as he jumps down from a higher level can been seen as just that - or there
could be problems, think about it....
There were examples of this sort of thing given in the Ch4 programme 'Films
of Fire' a few years back, for example due to slow film speeds (back in the
days of glass plates) it was common to use strings to keep limbs still when
photographing young children and babies, those untouched original 'master'
plates are innocent to most but some will see possible child abuse
(bondage) - especially if the child is naked. Also there is the case of
Tower Productions, cleared by the courts, one of the problems (AIUI) was
that a male child descending on a slide past the camera lens brought his
genitals into prominence - there was no intentional indecency in the film
but someone somewhere did consider the footage indecent (and quite possibly
on seeing a frame grab or isolated film clip out of context I suspect).
Jerry.
>
<snip>
>
> In fact, Fred, there are some tests - they are just not set out in the
law,
> though they might have been, such as...
>
> * Does the image appear to be for the purpose of arousing a sexual
reaction
> in the viewer?
>
Journalist-North, you make some interesting comments but your comment above
don't add up, for example, a non sexual photo of bear feet (adult or child)
could be used by someone who has a foot fetish the purpose of arousing a
sexual reaction - any photo could thus be deemed as indecent, especially if
the genitals are in view, as anything could be used by someone who has a
sexual fetish involving the subject or object in the photo / image.
<snip>
>
> On balance, too, the test image I posted, is NOT "indecent" if these tests
> are applied to it... which is exactly what I did when I selected it for
that
> purpose.
>
That image, to any 'normal' person certainly does not have a sexual context,
but as you know (having posed the question) there quite possibly are some
people who might well use that image as a base for their sexual fantasies or
consider that people might do so and go to law to prevent the image being
seen / owned by others. It is not as clear cut as you seem to have implied.
The meaning of the image is in the eye of the beholder, to miss-quote the
phrase...
--
Jerry.
Location - United Kingdom.
In the first instance please reply to group,
The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only.
Mark
> a non sexual photo of bear feet
??? WHAT ???!
Mark
>Also there is the case of
>Tower Productions, cleared by the courts, one of the problems (AIUI) was
>that a male child descending on a slide past the camera lens brought his
>genitals into prominence - there was no intentional indecency in the film
>but someone somewhere did consider the footage indecent (and quite possibly
>on seeing a frame grab or isolated film clip out of context I suspect).
A good point.
Can anyone clarify whether the essence of this case (ie: R vs. Mr
Peters) was similar?
Mark
Mark
<david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> All I can say is with friends like Sue Piper and co who needs enemies.
>
>This looks like a classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. Do YOU
>know anything, or is your abusive comment about Sue gratuitous?
>
>David.
Well, I myself don't know any of the people involved, but I AM a
little surprised that the "National Governing Body" (and its officers)
did not presume innocence and support the accused here, *UNLESS IT
KNOWS SOMETHING WE ALL DON'T*. But of course he was acquitted, wasn't
he?
Because by 'keeping out of it', or maybe worse, siding with the
prosecution, BN has:-
1) Cast serious doubts on the character of Mr Peters, whoever he is.
And:
2) Implied to the Authorities that it is not interested in contesting
other cases, where actualjy innocent naturist activities might be
misconstrued by Police / public / etc, etc.
Either of these, though probably by cock-up rather than conspiracy,
could have serious consequences for them & us all.
All (IMHO of course),
Mark
Mark
Is there a LONGER report on the case anywhere ?
M
Jerry.
"Mark" <mark@hawks{get-rid}farm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0aaaa0prsnkfsgnrs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:55:08 +0100, "Jerry." <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > a non sexual photo of bear feet
>
> ??? WHAT ???!
Presumably you think all photo's of bear feet are sexual then ?!...
Jerry.
This is not surprising at all IMO, many organisations suspend / remove
support when criminal charges are brought to one of their members /
employees. Lets reverse the situation, what _if_ a member / was / found
guilty of possession and that the national governing body had stood by the
member without question - their FIRST responsibility is to protect the
organisation and it's other members.
As for casting doubt on the character of Mr Peters, that doubt was already
cast - by the police / CPS.
I might add that IMO Mr Paley, in starting this thread, has probably brought
more doubts on the character of Mr Peters than anyone else, by publicising a
case that few people in the world knew about, many people on reading this
thread in the years to come will be saying "No smoke without fire" and that
as officers of the 'National Governing Body' HAVE seen the images concerned
(something that most of the people contributing so far to this thread have
not) there must have been something wrong with the images, seeing that the
same 'National Governing Body' publish a magazine with innocent images of
children within (and sometimes on the cover(s) ).
Journalist-North
"Jerry." <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2gkmo2F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
(snip)
> >
>
> That image, to any 'normal' person certainly does not have a sexual
context,
> but as you know (having posed the question) there quite possibly are some
> people who might well use that image as a base for their sexual fantasies
or
> consider that people might do so and go to law to prevent the image being
> seen / owned by others. It is not as clear cut as you seem to have
implied.
> The meaning of the image is in the eye of the beholder, to miss-quote the
> phrase...
>
------
The citeria are not supposed to be applied in isolation, one at a time, but
to draw in a combined fashion a conclusion on an overall balance.
This is similar to the application of the so-called Miller Test in the US
that is used for obscenity... If something (a objectionable picture or film)
lacks clear scientific OR artistic OR educaional value it can be considered
is obscene. If any one is "false" then the subject is NOT obscene for
purposes of the test and a prosecution will fail. The same thing here, all
the tests are applied though one, or more, may indicate "indecency" the
single point or two that may, does not make it so if it can be seen not to
be so in several others as well.
It is actually, IMO, a reasonable test when measured against a normal
person's reaction to an image (or film), and the British system of justice
does rely heavily on what the "reasonale person" might think to reach such
conclusions, in this as well as many other types of cases.
Journalist
David Looser
news:qiaaa0thtkgbrjgtg...@4ax.com...
> <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> All I can say is with friends like Sue Piper and co who needs enemies.
> >
> >This looks like a classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. Do
YOU
> >know anything, or is your abusive comment about Sue gratuitous?
> >
> >David.
>
> Well, I myself don't know any of the people involved, but I AM a
> little surprised that the "National Governing Body" (and its officers)
> did not presume innocence and support the accused here, *UNLESS IT
> KNOWS SOMETHING WE ALL DON'T*. But of course he was acquitted, wasn't
> he?
>
"indecent", were not the sort of picture that most naturists would regard as
acceptable naturist photos. What Sue said about them suggests that this may
well be the case.
As has been said already none of us know enough about this case to be able
to come to a clear conclusion. Which is why I find Brian's contribution so
unacceptable. Having stated that none of us knows much about it, he then
goes on to make the most outrageous statements about Sue, who AFAIK knows
far more about this case than anyone else here. IF Brian knows anything he
should declare it, otherwise he should withdraw his remarks.
David.
Journalist-North
>
Also there is the case of
> Tower Productions, cleared by the courts, one of the problems (AIUI) was
> that a male child descending on a slide past the camera lens brought his
> genitals into prominence - there was no intentional indecency in the film
> but someone somewhere did consider the footage indecent (and quite
possibly
> on seeing a frame grab or isolated film clip out of context I suspect).
>
Believe that was the case in Tower. Keep in mind too that video and motion
picture film can be cut, so objectionable "frames" as well as whole scenes
can be removed and the remainder deemed acceptable. BBFC historically
recommends these kinds of alterations to filmmakers and distributors in
rating decisions. Customs, on the other hand, viewed it differently before
Tower. If one single frame was objectionable the whole work was considered
objectionable and subject to seizure and destruction.
I am reminded, too, of the Minister for the Arts several years ago [don't
recall who held the position at the time- but believe it was a woman in that
case] making public statements that her department would "never censor the
arts." Then, at nearly the same time, she blithely went about the business
of encouraging [officially in her ministerial position] the prohibition of
the sale in the UK of certain satellite receiving equipment (set top boxes)
and the means of administration of customer accounts, to prevent reception
of some x-rated channel from Holland. Talking out of both sides of her mouth
as politicians do... in fact talking out of her a*se.
Journalist.
Jerry.
Opps !!.... BARE FEET that should be ! :~((
Mark
You got it !! (eventually!)
M
Journalist-North
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c83536$1nq$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ln6pc.3741$8k.34...@news-text.cableinet.net...
(snip)
> >
> > More precisely in the eyes of the court and the jury.
> >
> So has any published page 3 picture ever been the subject of a court case?
>
> David.
------
Don't know. That would take some research back to the early days. They have
been around since late1970 in the Sun.
There is some historical reference to the first pre-P3 nude image published
in a British newspaper being one of Evelyn (?) Nieve or Nieves (?) published
many years ago in the Times. There was an outcry, and there were threats,
but ISTR, no actual legal action.
Journalist
Journalist-North
"Brian" <bt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RP7pc.30798$IY1....@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
>
>
NOTICE: A fair and impartial trial will commence at 10 o'clock...the hanging
promptly at Noon.
LOL
Journalist
Richard Burnham
<bt...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Richard Burnham
<mark@hawks{get-rid}farm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>Well, I myself don't know any of the people involved, but I AM a
>little surprised that the "National Governing Body" (and its officers)
>did not presume innocence and support the accused here, *UNLESS IT
>KNOWS SOMETHING WE ALL DON'T*. But of course he was acquitted, wasn't
>he?
BN does not try the accused, the court does. The court decides whether
the accused is innocent; BN cannot not have all the facts the court has
to come to a verdict.
I am in favour of BN having a Legal Fund to support naturists, but it
clearly has to be at the discretion of the EC which cases to support,
both on account of limited resources and because only genuine cases
should be supported. The legal fund should only be for genuine naturist
activities, such as people arrested for legal and innocent nudity on
beaches.
It is not clear that Mr Peters was 'suspended' as Mike Paley claimed;
another version is that he was no longer a member and tried to rejoin at
the time of his arrest. And as I've pointed out, the acquittal does not
necessarily mean that Mr Peters is fit to be a member of BN, and the EC
has to make a decision based on whatever information is available to it.
>Because by 'keeping out of it', or maybe worse, siding with the
>prosecution, BN has:-
>
How did 'BN side with the prosecution'? All that has been stated here
is that two members of BN, neither speaking officially on behalf of the
organisation, were called to give evidence. It's not unusual for
naturists in responsible positions to be involved in court cases this
way.
>1) Cast serious doubts on the character of Mr Peters, whoever he is.
>
>And:
>
>2) Implied to the Authorities that it is not interested in contesting
>other cases, where actualjy innocent naturist activities might be
>misconstrued by Police / public / etc, etc.
>
>Either of these, though probably by cock-up rather than conspiracy,
>could have serious consequences for them & us all.
>
>All (IMHO of course),
>
>Mark
Mr Peters was not accused of 'innocent naturist activities', but of
having indecent photographs of children. Not in general a matter for BN.
Although Mr Peters said he was a naturist, there appears to be nothing
specifically of naturist relevance in the case. The fact that the
pictures may have been taken at a naturist site does not mean they must
be innocent naturist pictures - indecent photographs can be taken
anywhere; and if BN had to take up the case simply because the pictures
appeared to be taken at a naturist site, then anyone in the same
position could come to BN demanding support on the grounds that the
pictures in question were 'naturist pictures'.
Although we haven't seen the pictures, some of them were clearly were a
bit dodgy; Suzanne is the editor of a magazine, and must have seen many
naturist pictures (and turned some of them down). She stated that she
was 'not comfortable' with some of the pictures. And it has been stated
that the pictures may have been taken surreptitiously. That would be
good enough grounds, in my view, for refusing someone membership of BN.
The legality of the pictures is irrelevant to this matter.
So, absolutely no case at all has been made that either BN or Suzanne
Piper has done anything improper; but Mr Peters' own supporters have
themselves put his character in a bad light. Some friends! They protest
too much.
Finally, I have read Mike Paley's contributions to u.r.n for many years,
and I know Suzanne Piper. I have every reason to believe that Mike
Paley's judgement in these matters is seriously flawed, whilst Suzanne's
is based on genuine experience. Mike Paley asked us all to make our
judgement on what little evidence has been presented to us, and I have
done so on very carefully considered grounds. It's no use complaining
now that it's not the judgement that he wanted.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
>
> "Journalist-North" <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Lf7pc.3791$dP.35...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > In fact, Fred, there are some tests - they are just not set out in the
> law,
> > though they might have been, such as...
> >
> <snip>
> > * Does the image appear to be for the purpose of arousing a sexual
> reaction
> > in the viewer?
> >
>
> Journalist-North, you make some interesting comments but your comment above
> don't add up, for example, a non sexual photo of bear feet (adult or child)
> could be used by someone who has a foot fetish the purpose of arousing a
> sexual reaction - any photo could thus be deemed as indecent, especially if
> the genitals are in view, as anything could be used by someone who has a
> sexual fetish involving the subject or object in the photo / image.
>
Yes? Well done, you have finally managed to catch up with the argument, a
pity it was defined 5 years ago! :-(
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
rid}farm.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > a non sexual photo of bear feet
>
> ??? WHAT ???!
>
you to read, then answer, then bear( sic) the brunt of his wrath if you
don't guess correctly
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> > Presumably you think all photo's of bear feet are sexual then ?!...
> >
>
> Opps !!.... BARE FEET that should be ! :~((
>
tried to be sarcastic later?
Richard Burnham
Journalist-North <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
What is actually being demanded (by Mike Paley et al.) is that witnesses
for the prosecution should be hanged if the defendant is acquitted. I
wonder if that means that witnesses for the defence must be hanged if
the defendant is found guilty?
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> As for casting doubt on the character of Mr Peters, that doubt was already
> cast - by the police / CPS.
>
innocent , as did the court.
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
david....@btinternet.com says...
> s has been said already none of us know enough about this case to be able
> to come to a clear conclusion
>
defendant was found NOT GUILTY..The only piece of information we need to
decide that was the verdict of the jury, everything else is speculation.
This thread started off with a lambasting of Sue for not supporting a
naturist that was " innocent" that lambasting was unfair. Equally unfair
is the suggestion that the defendant was "guilty" because we/I/they don't
like the idea of what was reported to be his pictures. I have never met
Sue or the defendant, I trust Sue I have no knowledge of the defendant, I
'm sure Sue gave an honest account of her opinion, none of the above
means that I know anything about the case. In fact the only thing I know
is that the defendant is " not guilty" of the charges, that is the only "
clear conclusion"
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> It was suggested that Mr Peters may have a related previous conviction -
> does anyone know whether this is true or false?
>
Is this relevant to the law, CCBN or this marsupial court?
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
rid}farm.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >> All I can say is with friends like Sue Piper and co who needs enemies.
> >
> >This looks like a classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. Do YOU
> >know anything, or is your abusive comment about Sue gratuitous?
> >
> >David.
>
> Well, I myself don't know any of the people involved, but I AM a
> little surprised that the "National Governing Body" (and its officers)
> did not presume innocence and support the accused here, *UNLESS IT
> KNOWS SOMETHING WE ALL DON'T*. But of course he was acquitted, wasn't
> he?
>
will rapidly find that you have little room to "support the accused",
your job ( as a witness) is to answer questions to the best of your
ability and as honestly as possible. Real life aint like " A few good
men"
Ron
Only the Court (and society at large) presume innocence. The police
and the CPS say the defendant is Guilty so it is a bit difficult for
them to presume innocence.!
Jerry.
"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto re...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1b0f73aaa...@news.demon.co.uk...
No, the only COURTS presume innocents, the police and CPS do not - otherwise
no case would ever reach court !
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
> > No, it wasn't, the Police and the CPS both presumed that Mr Peters was
> > innocent , as did the court.
>
> No, the only COURTS presume innocents, the police and CPS do not - otherwise
> no case would ever reach court !
>
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
says...
> >No, it wasn't, the Police and the CPS both presumed that Mr Peters was
> >innocent , as did the court.
>
> Only the Court (and society at large) presume innocence. The police
> and the CPS say the defendant is Guilty so it is a bit difficult for
> them to presume innocence.!
>
Journalist-North
"Richard Burnham" <c...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:TvfFCYNI...@not.disclosed...
>
--------
Maybe we should hang the lawyers [on both sides], Richard, we might all be
better off. Bet you could even draw a crowd.
LOL
Journalist
Malcolm Boura
"Brian" <bt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Steve Doerr" <REVERSEdo...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E97C4CEA4F6st...@127.0.0.1...
> > mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk (pmailkeey) wrote in
> news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net:
> >
> > > Re R V Peters, 11/05/04
>
> I have never came accross a debate like this before. No one seems to know
> anything about the case yet they all seem to know the answers.
If you read the post carefully you will notice that the vagueness of
the circumstances is the cause of the amount of ground that has to be
covered. There are a lot of alternative questions.
You will also find that no one has been critical of photographs that
they have not seen.
People have, quite rightly, been critical of the surreptitious taking of
photographs of children.
--
Malcolm Boura, NUFF coordinator.
NUFF http://www.nuff.org.uk/ is the FAQ for the uk.rec.naturist newsgroup.
Please read before posting to the group.
It is the comprehensive www source of UK naturist information.
Fred H
news:Lf7pc.3791$dP.35...@news-text.cableinet.net...
out in the law,
> though they might have been, such as...
>
> * Is child, or do they seem to be, "distressed"? (are they apparently
> distressed by the presence of the photographer or the circumstance of the
> photograph? Just having a good cry probably doesn't count.)
> * Is the child engaged in a sexual activity?
> * Is the child pictured in context? (nude in a naturist context (OK) or
nude
> in a non-nude context (more questionable))
> * Is the child pictured alone or with other children and adults and in
> context?
> * Is the "focus", the main and central purpose of the image, one that
> appears to draw attention to the sexual organs?
> * Does the image appear to be for the purpose of arousing a sexual
reaction
> in the viewer?
>
> the case of HM Customs and Excise v Tower Productions when Customs seized
an
> (allegedly indecent) naturist video on importation to the UK. Tower was
> found not guilty and the video ordered by the court released [from Customs
> impound] and returned to them. AFAIK these tests, or something very
similar,
> still serve as the HMCE guidance on similar materials, where there had
been
> no objective internal (HMCE) guidance prior to the Tower case.
Thanks for posting them. I don't have them elsewhere, but I have seen
similar attempts where legislatures have attempted to define the ephemeral.
I don't doubt your research, but neither do I see these as being
particularly objective - some are quite the opposite. This is also defining
unacceptable images of children, not defining indecency per se (and I'm sure
you realise this, but for the purpose of debate...)
Take the penultimate criterion as an example (the last one is nothing but
subjective). The parts of an image that a viewer is drawn to will vary
considerably. How about a page three pin-up as a test? A lot of
non-naturists looking at them are immediately drawn to the breasts - that's
the whole point as far as the 'newspaper' is concerned. Breasts appear to
have an ever-lasting novelty value to some men, but when naturists see the
same photograph it means nothing - you're more likely to be drawn to a
ridiculous hair cut.
If you want to see some more photographs where attention is drawn to the
private parts, pick up any copy of BN (I haven't looked closely at one for a
couple of years - could be out of date). Almost every time someone is
pictured in that publication the photograph will be cropped from their head
to thighs, which means you have a face at the top and genitals at the bottom
with an featureless area of pink in the middle. The background is usually a
hedge or a wall. This gives each picture two focal points, one of which is
'indecent'.
Why does the art editor do this? I'll assume that the intent isn't
pornographic, and it may be purely unintentional. However, I suspect that
there's a desire to show that the person pictured is, in fact, nude - just
to make the point - this is a magazine about being nude. If you had a
head-and-shoulders shot there'd be some doubt, although it would make a much
better portrait of the featured individual.
As a filter for a customs officer to sift stuff for further examination,
those rules may be okay - but I don't think they're objective. I don't think
they're suitable for anything more serious, like defining criminality in a
court - you still need a reasonable subjective assesment and the benefit of
the doubt.
Jerry.
And if they thought the person innocent they wouldn't prefer charges, would
they, the Police would release the person without charge and the CPS would
not place the charges before the courts !
David Looser
> In article <c83ft9$kj1$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> david....@btinternet.com says...
> > s has been said already none of us know enough about this case to be
able
> > to come to a clear conclusion
> >
> WhooaHHHH every one has read enough to come to the same conclusion. The
> defendant was found NOT GUILTY..The only piece of information we need to
> decide that was the verdict of the jury, everything else is speculation.
Actually there are two pieces of information. One, that the jury found him
"not guilty". And the other that Sue was "uncomfortable" with some of his
pictures. There are two ways of reconciling these facts. Either, as Mike
Paley and Brian assert, Mr Peters is totally pure and blameless and Sue is
an enemy of naturism. Or Mr Peter's pictures, whilst not being legally
"indecent" are, nevertheless not the sort of thing that most naturists would
regard as acceptable images of naturism. Without seeing the pictures for
myself I cannot make a firm choice between these two, however Sue is a well
known spokesperson for naturism, and I feel inclined to accept her judgement
on this.
David.
Richard Burnham
<marccdimspamremovedimspamto@reply.?.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
Nobody is claiming that the defendant is guilty of the charges he was
cleared of.
What is at issue for me is that his friends are now making the false
(and defamatory, and potentially in contempt of court) claim that this
somehow makes him a victim of BN and the witnesses who gave evidence for
the prosecution.
What has emerged about the circumstances surrounding the pictures
suggests that those friends would better serve Mr Peters by holding
their silence.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Brian
> In message <MPG.1b0f75ba4...@news.demon.co.uk>, marc
> <marccdimspamremovedimspamto@reply.?.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
> >In article <c83ft9$kj1$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> >david....@btinternet.com says...
> >> s has been said already none of us know enough about this case to be
able
> >> to come to a clear conclusion
> >>
> >WhooaHHHH every one has read enough to come to the same conclusion. The
> >defendant was found NOT GUILTY..The only piece of information we need to
> >decide that was the verdict of the jury, everything else is speculation.
> Nobody is claiming that the defendant is guilty of the charges he was
> cleared of.
>
> What is at issue for me is that his friends are now making the false
> (and defamatory, and potentially in contempt of court) claim that this
> somehow makes him a victim of BN and the witnesses who gave evidence for
> the prosecution.
>
> What has emerged about the circumstances surrounding the pictures
> suggests that those friends would better serve Mr Peters by holding
> their silence.
>
> --
> Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
>
Yes that could be true However the BN and the so called expert witnesses
don't come out of this covered in roses.
Brian
I think it is time a definition of what constitutes an obscene photo is
defined in law. If this person was put on trial next week with people like
some on here who I will not mention on the jury. He would be hung drawn and
quartered. His crime was to take a few snapshots in a naturist club.
David Looser
>
>
> I think it is time a definition of what constitutes an obscene photo is
> defined in law.
So, what would such a definition be?. A list of "obscene" body parts, as in
the USA or what?. I cannot see that that will help at all, quite the
contrary.
If this person was put on trial next week with people like
> some on here who I will not mention on the jury. He would be hung drawn
and
> quartered. His crime was to take a few snapshots in a naturist club.
>
Do you know any more about this case than has been posted to this thread? If
so post it here so we can all have the benefit of it. If not stop making
statements that you do not have the evidence to justify.
David.
pmailkeey
<duncanheenanR...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
:)How did the police come by these pictures in the first place?
A simultaneous dawn raid with myself - all because the police were
investigating another friend after a false report of him downloading
child porn - which of course the police found wasn't true !
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
:)I was asked to give evidence as to whether the photographs were acceptable
:)as naturist photographs. The photographs I saw I would certainly not have
:)published in BN - it is a matter of opinion.
And in the opinion of non-naturists, they were not as bad as you made
out.
Some of the photographs I saw
:)were obviously taken without the persons knowledge as they were taken from
:)within a caravan and out through an awning.
Better than having posed photos.
:)The evidence I understood I was to be giving was that naturist do not take
:)covert photographs,
Don't they ?
no do they take photographs of minors without consent of
:)the adult responsible for those minors.
:)My understanding was that the parents of these young people had not given
:)permission.
But at the time, were the pareents responsible for them ?
:)I do not know if you saw all of the evidence that I saw including the
:)compilation of various videos that were taken in one of the defendants home
:)(he understand pleaded guilty a few months back) - certainly I could see no
:)purpose in retaining these. The reason given was security as things were
:)being stolen so I understand. If there was nothing stolen why keep a tape
:)with several hours of young people using two computers in what seemed a
:)small room. the youths were nude and masturbating and generally messing
:)around with their genitals.
And what sort of a sentence would a person get for having such an
indecent video ?
I've seen youths "mess around with their genitals" in public - and
have seen one masturbating in the street - while clothed !
:)If that is naturism or the type of thing a naturist would wish to keep
The difference is that it was without clothes.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
:)It is my understanding that when the youths told
:)parents/adults about the photographs - visits to one of the defendants homes
:)that the investigation took place.
The police told me that it was an "anonymous tip-off from someone who
gave a false address" and was regarding the downloading of child porn.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)IMO we are getting only very limited information on this case
:)(which, of course, it not at all unusual - court cases often last
:)days or weeks,
This one was effectively just one day. - Apart from pre-trial
introductions.
:)I would be most interested to know the basis on which Sue Piper
:)and Cath Carrey were giving evidence
Cath's contribution was minimal and not really significant. Sue was
there hoping to give her view on the indecency of the images but the
judge only wanted her to comment on the "setting" - location and
style - of the photos.
:)
:)Sue states that it was clear to her that some images had resulted
:)from what I would presume to be "surreptitious procuring". Yet
:)it also appears from Sue's post that the images were of
:)"nakedness in a legitimate setting", so that - deliberately or
:)otherwise - Sue was arguing for the defence if she gave evidence
:)that the imagery was of a naturist environment.
Her evidence was as above and favoured the defence although she was a
prosecution witness.
:)
:)Mike Paley hasn't said on what basis he and others were standing
:)by to give evidence for the defence. Was this character
:)evidence? Or evidence concerning the indecency (or otherwise) of
:)the images?
I believethe other three were character evidence - including by one of
the children. In my case, it was to bring similar photos to the
attention of the court which the CPS felt unworthy of generating a
case.
:)
:)Is anyone going to let us know something more about the images?
As I only saw glances of them, perhaps Su can give details ?
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:58, Suzanne gave a detailed explanation of
:)her involvement in this case. It seems to me to be to be
:)entirely reasonable, and I see no justification in it for
:)derogatory comments about her.
:)
:)> The judge ruled that any evidence relating to naturist norms
:)> was not admissible evidence
:)
:)Then, IMO, the defence didn't do its job properly in ensuring the
:)judge was fully aware of case law, since the Court of Appeal have
:)ruled that nakedness in a legitimate setting is not, of itself,
:)pornographic.
"Pornographic" ? do you mean "indecent" by that ?
As it happened, the judge stopped proceedings twice to discuss this
point with the barristers - as he was so unsure himself, he decided
to run the trial and let the jury decide.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. To me, some images are indecent,
:)others are not and others might be. Photographs in the latter category can
:)be created by accident, and in this case it is logical to examine the
:)circumstances under which they were taken to determine the motives of the
:)photograper. It's easy to take an indecent photograph by mistake - it's also
:)very easy to delete it if this was not your intention.
:)
As you started - "indecency is in the eye of the beholder" - so if the
photographer didn't feel the taken image was indecent, why should he
discard it ?
:)The facts that these images were obtained in a clandestine manner
Please explain - as it sounds like you feel there was something
untoward in the way the pictures were taken...
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:53:25 GMT, "Journalist-North"
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
:)* Except for the recent addition to British law of the SOA there is no
:)distinction in law between covert (clandestine) and overt photography absent
:)a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If this is your definition of "clandestine", I'm not sure it applies
to these photographs as it seemed clear the subjects could clearly see
the photographer.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
:)There is no way to rely on the claim of innocent creation
:)of such a photograph as a defence.
What if the defendant didn't know the indecent image was made, and in
his possession in the first place ?
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)Wow! A long reply, but I think we're basically in agreement - this guy may
:)not be guilty of a criminal offence based on the information posted here and
:)your analysis above (as the jury found). He may also be morally innocent - I
:)wasn't there, but the facts as presented here don't look good. As far as I'm
:)concerned (and presumably the CCBN committee and most other naturists), the
:)last thing we need is someone hiding in the bushes taking pictures of
:)children.
1. 7 images - It's unlikely any were taken covertly, but one or two
may have.
2. The images were within the holidaying group and not of other
people's children.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)However, I do agree it is out of order to attack someone for giving
:)evidence under oath to a court, which has the duty to weigh the evidence
:)before coming to a verdict.
I believe it is entirely deserved given the fact that a naturist is
not coming to the defence of a fellow naturist while non-naturists
have.
:)
:)It is almost certainly also contempt of court. Anyone putting pressure
:)on someone to change evidence, or to punish them for giving evidence,
There was nothing wrong with the evidence Sue gave. In fact, Sue's
anti-naturist behaviour is nothing to do with the case.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
:)
:)"pmailkeey" <mi...@pmailkeey.freeserve.co.yuk> wrote in message
:)news:40a2aeb6...@news.swinternet.net...
:)> When Mr Peters first had a problem last year, he turned to the CCBN,
:)> as a member and a naturist, for their assistance and support with his
:)> problem. Their response was quite simple.
:)>
:)> They suspended his membership of CCBN.
:)
:)
:)And has R V Peters been reinstated to CCBN as well?... or at least not
:)saddled with being on their "black list" if he was, after all , not guilty
:)of any offence.
:)
I don't think he has any intention of rejoining. Can you blame him ?
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
:)While we are on the subject of reinstatement - the last time Peters was a
:)member of BN was in 200. He tried to rejoin after his arrest and at that
:)time he told BN why he was rejoining - ie he had been arrested. His
:)application to rejoin was refused.
:)
:)The other person - Hallet - was last a member in 2002 and has not rejoined
:)since.
:)
Now that looks like a clear breach of the sort of confidentiality
naturists would expect from CCBN.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
wrote:
:)I suspect that Sue Piper and Cath Carrey as well known naturists were used
:)by the prosecution to try and sway the jury into believing the photos were
:)obscene and to return a guilty verdict.
:)
:)What qualifications do they have if any to judge these photos if any?
:)
:)They should now hang their heads in shame after the not guilty verdict.
:)
:)Brian
:)
Cath was there as a witness, but I did not notice anything negative
towards a fellow naturist from her and she is therefore free of any
claims of shame.
Your suspicions were right in respect of Sue. And the gripe against
Sue is that she agreed to do this - especially when clearly the jury
found to the contrary.
--
Comm again, Mike.
pmailkeey
:)"Brian" <bt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
:)news:uPJoc.2637$EI2....@doctor.cableinet.net...
:)>
:)> I suspect that Sue Piper and Cath Carrey as well known naturists were used
:)> by the prosecution to try and sway the jury into believing the photos were
:)> obscene and to return a guilty verdict.
:)>
:)> What qualifications do they have if any to judge these photos if any?
:)>
:)> They should now hang their heads in shame after the not guilty verdict.
:)>
:)> Brian
:)>
:)>
:)I was asked as R&LO to give an opinion. I gave an honest opinion of the
:)material presented to me.
:)I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Well I think you do. With friends like you, who needs enemies ? Your
"honest opinion" is clearly out of touch with reality.
--
Comm again, Mike.
Jerry.
>
<big snip>
>
>... His crime was to take a few snapshots in a naturist club.
>
Yes a few snaps of (according to what has been said) minors not related to
him, taken without the child's or their parents / guardians permission or
knowledge, from a place quite possibly out of sight of those in the
photo's....