Teen boy sends nude pic to girl. What law has he broken?
Discussion
A teen boy sent a nude selfie to a girl, (which apparently she forwarded to others), and now has a police record. Apparently, the picture was considered indecent. Now, having been a naturist for many years, I’m reasonably conversant with the nude people issues, and thus I, and of course all naturists, wouldn’t consider a picture of a nude person indecent. I’m reasonably confident that just a nude picture actually isn’t considered indecent legally as well. So what’s going on here. And what are the learned opinions of the wise men of PH on this issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34142241
British Naturism publishes a guide, it’s here:-
http://www.bn.org.uk/community/files/file/669-publ...
Click on the download button at the top of the page.
PS. Wish I’d had such facilities when I was a teenager !!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34142241
British Naturism publishes a guide, it’s here:-
http://www.bn.org.uk/community/files/file/669-publ...
Click on the download button at the top of the page.
PS. Wish I’d had such facilities when I was a teenager !!!!!
Depends on the age. Theoretically taking a picture of yourself can be the absolute offence of manufacturing child pornography. As a parent, its my job, and has been since phones developed cameras to hammer in to their heads the idea that digital = permanent, whether thats stupid comments on Facebook, or sending dirty pics to a prospective partner. Odd things, teenagers.
HantsRat said:
robinessex said:
I’m reasonably confident that just a nude picture actually isn’t considered indecent legally as well.
Well it is if it's of a child! As it was in this case. Do you think if you had nude photos of children (under 18's) on your computer it wouldn't be illegal? Except that it loses credibility by quoting the mainstream press.
It's not clear from the information at all as regards the facts about this intelligence database and how it would appear in a crb check as clearly he is innocent of the offence as he hasn't been convicted.
More actual knowledge and facts needed.
Bert
It's not clear from the information at all as regards the facts about this intelligence database and how it would appear in a crb check as clearly he is innocent of the offence as he hasn't been convicted.
More actual knowledge and facts needed.
Bert
robinessex said:
I, and of course all naturists, wouldn’t consider a picture of a nude person indecent.
I'm not a naturist but I wouldn't find it indecent at all. The only people likely to are those religious types, and those people have a distorted view of everything due to their religious brainwashing.randlemarcus said:
Depends on the age. Theoretically taking a picture of yourself can be the absolute offence of manufacturing child pornography. As a parent, its my job, and has been since phones developed cameras to hammer in to their heads the idea that digital = permanent, whether thats stupid comments on Facebook, or sending dirty pics to a prospective partner. Odd things, teenagers.
So were polaroids but it didn't stop anyone right up until the noughties when we all got camera phones.Devil2575 said:
I'm no Columbo but it didn't take me long to find out what law he has broken...
A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
I would argue the girl who saved then forwarded the picture is also distributing the image. Appears to be no reference or follow up to that.A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
HantsRat said:
robinessex said:
I’m reasonably confident that just a nude picture actually isn’t considered indecent legally as well.
Well it is if it's of a child! As it was in this case. Do you think if you had nude photos of children (under 18's) on your computer it wouldn't be illegal? robinessex said:
HantsRat said:
robinessex said:
I’m reasonably confident that just a nude picture actually isn’t considered indecent legally as well.
Well it is if it's of a child! As it was in this case. Do you think if you had nude photos of children (under 18's) on your computer it wouldn't be illegal? Devil2575 said:
I'm no Columbo but it didn't take me long to find out what law he has broken...
A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Can you show me the legal reference to that then ? The law says INDECENT. Nudity pre se isn't indecent.A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Edited by robinessex on Friday 4th September 13:35
When I was a slightly-underage teenager, I was unknowingly snapped by a mate while horsing around in my underpants.
Many years later I discovered that said photo had spent several years passing through the hands of countless schoolgirls.
I can't say I felt anything other than a mixture of amusement and mild shock at the realisation that those girls actually liked what they saw.
Nobody was ever charged with anything and nobody was harmed in the slightest.
Would have been a completely different story today.
Many years later I discovered that said photo had spent several years passing through the hands of countless schoolgirls.
I can't say I felt anything other than a mixture of amusement and mild shock at the realisation that those girls actually liked what they saw.
Nobody was ever charged with anything and nobody was harmed in the slightest.
Would have been a completely different story today.
I watch the original 1978 superman film last weekend when it was broadcast. They broadcast the full frontal nude scene of him as a boy.
So it appears to be fine for a large company to broadcast images of naked children to millions of people and yet a single child cannot take a picture of himself. The world has gone mad.
So it appears to be fine for a large company to broadcast images of naked children to millions of people and yet a single child cannot take a picture of himself. The world has gone mad.
AintItFun said:
Do we know if the girl in question had been interview with reference to distributing "indecent" material ?
Goose / Gander and all that crap ...
Probably for the same reason that often when teenagers have sex underage you see the just 16 year old boy getting a record while nothing happens when its the girl who is just 16. Usually a lot of pressure from the girls parents in such cases. But the police often don't bother wasting the courts time with such stupid examples.Goose / Gander and all that crap ...
The sexting pictures thing is quite a big deal these days. Its clearly a law designed to stop pedos and nonces. It is silly that 16-18 year olds can shag themselves silly yet cant take photos of each other.
As said a badly written law. Will almost certainly be eventually revised to have a better definition especially with the prevailence of camera phones and the increasing trend for people to lead digital lives.
The BBC video is a little muddled.
At 00:56 seconds it talks of a crime not being recorded but being on 'an official database' and talks of 'intelligence' against the boy. As part of the wider picture of sorting out the CSE mess and dealing with it properly from now-on, it's not really a surprise to see this captured in such a manner.
At 02:22 it quotes the police talking about the Home Office Counting Rules, which is all to do with recording a crime. The quote looks generalised rather than talking about this specific incident. If a crime were recorded, it would be on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 50% of greater chance of having occurred, which is quite a low threshold.
In terms of the law, the CPS site provides sufficient detail: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photog...
There are 5 levels of indecent images, the lowest being, "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity". The image the child sent, in theory, could have amounted to that. The video suggests no crime was recorded, so it may have been judged that no law was broken in these circumstances.
At 00:56 seconds it talks of a crime not being recorded but being on 'an official database' and talks of 'intelligence' against the boy. As part of the wider picture of sorting out the CSE mess and dealing with it properly from now-on, it's not really a surprise to see this captured in such a manner.
At 02:22 it quotes the police talking about the Home Office Counting Rules, which is all to do with recording a crime. The quote looks generalised rather than talking about this specific incident. If a crime were recorded, it would be on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 50% of greater chance of having occurred, which is quite a low threshold.
In terms of the law, the CPS site provides sufficient detail: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photog...
There are 5 levels of indecent images, the lowest being, "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity". The image the child sent, in theory, could have amounted to that. The video suggests no crime was recorded, so it may have been judged that no law was broken in these circumstances.
Psycho Warren said:
As said a badly written law.
It's not badly written, it's just old. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff