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

[robinessex]

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

Aretnap said:

Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?

Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.

Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.

Wrong again

Really? Do explain

Posted by Silverfoxcc previously

robin
If it helps, When i worked in a camera the highlight of the year were the 'holiday'snaps.
We checked them 'just in case'
The lab didnt print or send out the hard core ones
BUT the rule was
Flaccid OK
Erect Nono
Open legs OK
Open legs and hand involved Nono
Genitals in close proximiy even if flaccid male NoNo
HTH And NO there are no examples

That's a pretty accurate statement. In the days when naturists used to take their holiday snaps to Boots, that criteria was applied, and I've never heard of any prosecutons resulting. naturist style pics were accepted for what they were, and no age criteria was ever applied. I rummaged in my old photo box last night, and found quite a few pictues of pictures of me, my sister, and quite a few cousins playing in the seaside edge, all of us starkers, when we were kids.

[Bigends]

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

Aretnap said:

Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?

Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.

Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.

Wrong again

Really? Do explain

Posted by Silverfoxcc previously

robin
If it helps, When i worked in a camera the highlight of the year were the 'holiday'snaps.
We checked them 'just in case'
The lab didnt print or send out the hard core ones
BUT the rule was
Flaccid OK
Erect Nono
Open legs OK
Open legs and hand involved Nono
Genitals in close proximiy even if flaccid male NoNo
HTH And NO there are no examples

That's a pretty accurate statement. In the days when naturists used to take their holiday snaps to Boots, that criteria was applied, and I've never heard of any prosecutons resulting. naturist style pics were accepted for what they were, and no age criteria was ever applied. I rummaged in my old photo box last night, and found quite a few pictues of pictures of me, my sister, and quite a few cousins playing in the seaside edge, all of us starkers, when we were kids.

That may have been your in-store guidelines in Supasnaps - times have changed and when they come to light these matters are all recorded now. Clearly holiday and family snaps, hardly, if ever would come to Police notice until we find out dads been sending them to his paedo friends. This whole thread was about teenagers sending nude selfies to each other - its not allowed!

[robinessex]

The public hasn't been informed of the nature of the pics, so we've no information to judge them, and the case has NOT been subjected to legal action in the courts. Thus it's not been shown/prooved that they are indecent.

[Bigends]

robinessex said:

The public hasn't been informed of the nature of the pics, so we've no information to judge them, and the case has NOT been subjected to legal action in the courts. Thus it's not been shown/prooved that they are indecent.

Public dont need to know. Police not taking action against the boy, Read my first post - these jobs are two a penny - we record these incidents every day - its just the papers got hold of this one and made a story out of a non story. We're obliged to record these when they get reported. If all of the picture taking and contact between the various parties is consensual - the job gets recorded and closed straight off

[robinessex]

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

The public hasn't been informed of the nature of the pics, so we've no information to judge them, and the case has NOT been subjected to legal action in the courts. Thus it's not been shown/prooved that they are indecent.

Public dont need to know. Police not taking action against the boy, Read my first post - these jobs are two a penny - we record these incidents every day - its just the papers got hold of this one and made a story out of a non story. We're obliged to record these when they get reported. If all of the picture taking and contact between the various parties is consensual - the job gets recorded and closed straight off

And the point you are making?

[Bigends]

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

The public hasn't been informed of the nature of the pics, so we've no information to judge them, and the case has NOT been subjected to legal action in the courts. Thus it's not been shown/prooved that they are indecent.

Public dont need to know. Police not taking action against the boy, Read my first post - these jobs are two a penny - we record these incidents every day - its just the papers got hold of this one and made a story out of a non story. We're obliged to record these when they get reported. If all of the picture taking and contact between the various parties is consensual - the job gets recorded and closed straight off

And the point you are making?

We (Police) judge whether or not theyre indecent or not and record accordingly- they rarely get to court to be tested - same as we make decisions in relation to recording a number of other offences which may be a matter of opinion or perception

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 5th September 18:23

[fidzer]

In Scotland it would be dealt with under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 - Section 6

Section 6 – Coercing a Person into Looking at a Sexual Image
This section creates the offence of “coercing a person into looking at a sexual image”. An offence is committed if a person intentionally (and for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or for the purpose of humiliating, distressing or alarming the victim) causes the victim to look at a sexual image. The offence is only committed if the victim did not consent to looking at the image and the accused had no reasonable belief that the victim so consented. Furthermore, the accused does not commit the offence if he or she had intended to direct or send the image to someone other than the person who saw it (e.g. by email).
A “sexual image” is an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual activity or an image of the genitals of a person, whether real or imaginary.

Cases involving an older child - (13-15) Section 33

Section 33 Causing an Older Child to Look at a Sexual Image

Section 33 creates the offence of “causing an older child to look at a sexual image.” The offences created by sections 23 and 33 are identical other than the fact that Section 33 can only be committed by a person aged 16 or over.
The offence is committed if a person intentionally causes a young child/older child to look at a sexual image if the perpetrator acts for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the young child/older child.
A “sexual image” is an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual activity or an image of the genitals of a person, whether real or imaginary.

Edited by fidzer on Saturday 5th September 18:46

Edited by fidzer on Saturday 5th September 18:49

[robinessex]

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

The public hasn't been informed of the nature of the pics, so we've no information to judge them, and the case has NOT been subjected to legal action in the courts. Thus it's not been shown/prooved that they are indecent.

Public dont need to know. Police not taking action against the boy, Read my first post - these jobs are two a penny - we record these incidents every day - its just the papers got hold of this one and made a story out of a non story. We're obliged to record these when they get reported. If all of the picture taking and contact between the various parties is consensual - the job gets recorded and closed straight off

And the point you are making?

We (Police) judge whether or not theyre indecent or not and record accordingly- they rarely get to court to be tested - same as we make decisions in relation to recording a number of other offences which may be a matter of opinion or perception

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 5th September 18:23

Still hasn't been tested in court. The Polices opinion isn't the law.

[robinessex]

fidzer said:

In Scotland it would be dealt with under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 - Section 6

Section 6 – Coercing a Person into Looking at a Sexual Image
This section creates the offence of “coercing a person into looking at a sexual image”. An offence is committed if a person intentionally (and for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or for the purpose of humiliating, distressing or alarming the victim) causes the victim to look at a sexual image. The offence is only committed if the victim did not consent to looking at the image and the accused had no reasonable belief that the victim so consented. Furthermore, the accused does not commit the offence if he or she had intended to direct or send the image to someone other than the person who saw it (e.g. by email).
A “sexual image” is an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual activity or an image of the genitals of a person, whether real or imaginary.

Cases involving an older child - (13-15) Section 33

Section 33 Causing an Older Child to Look at a Sexual Image

Section 33 creates the offence of “causing an older child to look at a sexual image.” The offences created by sections 23 and 33 are identical other than the fact that Section 33 can only be committed by a person aged 16 or over.
The offence is committed if a person intentionally causes a young child/older child to look at a sexual image if the perpetrator acts for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the young child/older child.
A “sexual image” is an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual activity or an image of the genitals of a person, whether real or imaginary.

Edited by fidzer on Saturday 5th September 18:46

Edited by fidzer on Saturday 5th September 18:49

What's a sexual image then?

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

Aretnap said:

Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?

Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.

Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.

Wrong again

Really? Do explain

Posted by Silverfoxcc previously.

Bigends was talking about what amounts to a RECORDING of an offence according to the Home Office Counting Rules. Nothing you or anyone else has written undermines what he has written about in this.

If you read the replies people have written, including the CPS links and the explanations of how the police RECORD crimes, then you would avoid some of these incorrect points.

robinessex said:

Still hasn't been tested in court. The Polices opinion isn't the law.

Where did he say it was? He has been talking about the recording of an offence on the balance of probabilities, not the proving beyond reasonable doubt.

[bltamil1]

La Liga said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

robinessex said:

Bigends said:

Aretnap said:

Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?

Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.

Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.

Wrong again

Really? Do explain

Posted by Silverfoxcc previously.

Bigends was talking about what amounts to a RECORDING of an offence according to the Home Office Counting Rules. Nothing you or anyone else has written undermines what he has written about in this.

If you read the replies people have written, including the CPS links and the explanations of how the police RECORD crimes, then you would avoid some of these incorrect points.

robinessex said:

Still hasn't been tested in court. The Polices opinion isn't the law.

Where did he say it was? He has been talking about the recording of an offence on the balance of probabilities, not the proving beyond reasonable doubt.

Where is Eclassy when you need him? He would know the answer to this off bat I'm sure.

[robinessex]

He has to be charged with an offence, and it has to be judged by a COURT to decided if guilty. THE POLICE CAN NOT MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ABOUT WETHER AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN PROOVEN. If it was my son, and he'd just sent a nudie selfie, I would push it to a court case.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

He has to be charged with an offence, and it has to be judged by a COURT to decided if guilty. THE POLICE CAN NOT MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ABOUT WETHER AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN PROOVEN. If it was my son, and he'd just sent a nudie selfie, I would push it to a court case.

Are you deliberately ignoring the context? No one has said anything about guilt or whether an offence is proven by mere recording.

When it comes to RECORDING crime, as per this this, then the police make decisions, based on the balance of probabilities, of whether or not a crime has been committed.

Whether or not you like it, don't understand it, or both, doesn't change the fact that's how it works.

[robinessex]

See my posting above

[Bigends]

Police rarely prosecute these so as NOT to criminalise the teenagers and potentially getting them onto the sexoffenders register. Pictures are often sent as a laugh in ignorance of the law and not for sexual gratification. These are recorded under the same rules as Paedophiles exchanging extreme images between themselves and we need a change in the laws to take this into account.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

See my posting above

The post stating what isn't in dispute and has nothing to do with anything anyone has written?

What an excellent and helpful contribution.

It is nearly as useful as an out-of-date guide from British Naturism.

[Willy Nilly]

Why is the attention on the boy for taking the picture and sending it to the girl, but not on the girl for distributing it?

Although they are not adults, are they not consenting teens?

[Bigends]

Willy Nilly said:

Why is the attention on the boy for taking the picture and sending it to the girl, but not on the girl for distributing it?

Although they are not adults, are they not consenting teens?

Dont have to consent - theyve not had sex together - just sent mucky pictures

[MrBarry123]

This whole case is a fk up.

The focus should be on providing education to children as to what can happen in this situation (i.e. your bits and bobs everywhere, forever) and not getting the law involved.

[Rostfritt]

robinessex said:

Well, if he got a bit excited about it all, then the picture WOULD be deemed indecent. Just nude wouldn't.

Not really considered that. Really the detail of the pictures are important to work out if they are indecent (not that I want to actually see them). Do they use the Mull of Kintyre rule that TV does?