Teen boy sends nude pic to girl. What law has he broken?

Teen boy sends nude pic to girl. What law has he broken?

Author
Discussion

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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 !!!!!

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

BoRED S2upid

19,644 posts

239 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Didn't I hear that he has a police record only because someone (girls mother?) called the police? He hasn't committed a crime and wasn't guilty but there is a record.

If this was a crime I'm sure half the population would be guilty of it.

HantsRat

2,369 posts

107 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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?


randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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?
Bad cases making bad law. What about the bath photos of the kids from when they were babies? I've got rid of all mine, but...

BertBert

18,955 posts

210 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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

Sushifiend

5,095 posts

136 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
...And what happened to the person who did the 'distributing indecent images of a person under 18'? The one who bullied him with 'revenge porn'?

Nada from what I can tell. How strange.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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

AintItFun

2,188 posts

225 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Do we know if the girl in question had been interview with reference to distributing "indecent" material ?

Goose / Gander and all that crap ...

e8_pack

1,384 posts

180 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
e8_pack said:
So were polaroids but it didn't stop anyone right up until the noughties when we all got camera phones.
No, polaroids and physical prints are slightly different in that they are less easy to share widely quickly. Can be done, not as easily.

BobSaunders

3,028 posts

154 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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?
No. it's not. I know naturist families who have loads of nude pics of their kids growing up.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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?
No. it's not. I know naturist families who have loads of nude pics of their kids growing up.
Christ, I've got loads of pics of the kids in the bath etc. They're very handy for blackmail if they start playing up now they're teenagers biggrin

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.


Edited by robinessex on Friday 4th September 13:35

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

Psycho Warren

3,087 posts

112 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

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.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
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.

Psycho Warren said:
As said a badly written law.
It's not badly written, it's just old.