Photographer prosecuted for fairy 'child porn'

Tsukiyomi

Tsukiyomi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
644
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Photographer-prosecuted-for-fairy-39child.4359539.jp

He was asked and employed by the parents who were present at the shoot to take portraits of their daughters so they make fairy photos of them and gets 150 hours community service!

Passing sentence, Judge Lawler QC added: "You always acted perfectly properly and their parents were perfectly law-abiding, sensible people who cared for their children."
Click to expand...

Sounds like he sentenced him for the sake of It.
 
Disgusting.
It really is.

The judge added: "What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing."
Click to expand...

Then why prosecute him?! :shrug: :bang:

Only a matter of time before looking at a child is considered child porn.
 
He needed a better lawyer, clearly, can't believe he lost that case !

The guidelines for the CPS clearly states that there needs to be a benefits to the community in the prosecution....where is the benefits in this ?
 
I can't believe that case wasn't thrown out of court!!! If the parents asked him to do it....then why haven't they been dragged up in front of the courts for some form of child abuse?!
 
I don't think the court had much choice and the tog pleaded guilty, he did after all take the pictures and that's what he was accused of. Why CPS brought the prosecution in the first place - probably to meet some set of targets set out by the government :(
 
Oh for **** sake, this is pathetic!!!!
 
I think that the offence is making images of the children - there is no provision for a defence of 'with consent of the parents/guardians' or 'in the presence of their parents'. The reasoning behind that is, of course, that often the abuser of a child is a close family member and to make specific exclusions results in larger lawyers fees and more abused children.

If the 'tog had used a digital camera, none of this would have come to light, hence the description of him as naive by the judge.

Personally, I do think the prosecution was rather silly, however I can understand why it got where it did.

B.
 
this has actually quite annoyed me. its slanderous to togs in general and with BS like this nowonder we get bad reps.

the parents asked for it to be done, there should be some punishment for them.

for example (extreme but relevant) i ask soemone to kill another person. both the killer and i are punnished! not just the killer!

It is an extreme example but the parents are jsut as guilty comissioning the work!
 
it's a shame but a lessen for all what seems innocent to one group will be considered different to another, obviously the staff at bonusprint brought the prosecution forward, while i applaud there actions, i feel once explained the case should have been investigated as child porn rings are in operation and it's families who are prevalent in this area, but once all backgrounds checked and every possible stone uncovered to pursue this groups innocence, if it was innocent then all accusations and charges dropped,


But should he have known better.......should he have questioned the motives of the parents who wanted there children photographed in this way, i would not want a naked picture of my 8 year old daughter in a Lilly pad why do they ??????



regards Mark.
 
>>the parents asked for it to be done

Completely irrelevant. The act in question doesn't deal with the question of why a picture was taken, just the question of "was an image made?",. Unfortunately for the tog, the offence is making grade 1 pictures of a child. There is no provision for a defence.

>>there should be some punishment for them

There could be, if anyone made an official complaint about them.

In this case, BonusPrint complained about the pictures they were asked to develop/print which would clearly have been an offence on their part - they are no more allowed to print and distribute grade 1 pics of children than anyone is allowed to take the pics in the first place.

>>both the killer and i are punnished!

Legally that is not the same at all. You are not both punished for Murder...

Ben
 
i wouldn't take topless photos of a 12 year old girl..... it's his bad in my book.
 
nowler said:
i wouldn't take topless photos of a 12 year old girl..... it's his bad in my book.
Click to expand...

Who said they were topless, they are quite clearly manipulated photos, so who said the 12 year old girl was topless?

The image he CREATED might have breached into child porn, but the guy was completely innocent imo. He didn't even consider the child porn aspects before creating the image. Innocent conscience, but no doubt realised his mistakes once it had been brought to his attention.
 
I had an interesting point made to me earlier this year

In the studio shoot, we tend to get kids of all ages to go through a pattern of poses the last of which is laid on their bellies (nice reflected light, easiest pose to control, least chance of wayward body-parts!)

Anyway, doing this with a bunch of 15 yr olds meant that one of them showed some cleavage. She was dressed in a lowish cut top and was more well endowed than her mates. Her parents, mates and her all loved the shot and it did well in a portrait section of a club competition - alls well then

Except a teacher who saw it when it was online said had the girl been in her class she'd have had to report it to the Police for depicting an underage girl in a sexual pose :eek::eek::eek:

She & her family couldn't believe it when we told them (dad is a copper btw) - but ever since I've been watching out for under 16s who are chesty and NOT shooting that shot of them unless they cover up!!!

DD
 
Seems that teacher needs some rehabilitation therapy to deal with her own questionable thoughts :(
 
foodpoison said:
Who said they were topless, they are quite clearly manipulated photos, so who said the 12 year old girl was topless?

The image he CREATED might have breached into child porn, but the guy was completely innocent imo. He didn't even consider the child porn aspects before creating the image. Innocent conscience, but no doubt realised his mistakes once it had been brought to his attention.
Click to expand...

see post 22.

anyway, regardless of that. if he created images of 10 and 12 year old girls similar to the example picture, i'd say he was being pretty naive about what he was doing. i wouldn't have done it..... this is a discussion forum after all and that's just my thoughts on it. you don't have to agree to them.
 
DiddyDave said:
I had an interesting point made to me earlier this year

In the studio shoot, we tend to get kids of all ages to go through a pattern of poses the last of which is laid on their bellies (nice reflected light, easiest pose to control, least chance of wayward body-parts!)

Anyway, doing this with a bunch of 15 yr olds meant that one of them showed some cleavage. She was dressed in a lowish cut top and was more well endowed than her mates. Her parents, mates and her all loved the shot and it did well in a portrait section of a club competition - alls well then

Except a teacher who saw it when it was online said had the girl been in her class she'd have had to report it to the Police for depicting an underage girl in a sexual pose :eek::eek::eek:

She & her family couldn't believe it when we told them - but ever since I've been watching out for under 16s who are chesty and NOT shooting that shot of them unless they cover up!!!

DD
Click to expand...

:eek: WHAT???? so its ok for them to wander the streets half naked with cleavage, midrif and most of thighs on display, but for god sake don't dare poke a camera in that direction? :bang:


As for the original story, I agree with what has been said generallly - bonusprint staff were right to raise concerns, the judge had no choice but to sentence as the tog pleaded guilty, and he was certainly 'naive', but the cps need a kick up the ass for this one for, there was obviously no intent for any malicious use of the images as his previous work shows and the judge pointed out. I can fully understand why the parents wanted such fairy images of their daughters, when complete they are about as far away from porn as its possible to be, but the means to the end is the problem. Frankly I think this case was a total waste of taxpayers money...again!
 
>>Who said they were topless

The Yorkshire post...

The commission involved taking close-up shorts of various parts of their bodies, which were then superimposed on top of each other, to create the fairy images.

Bonusprint staff were concerned by images which showed the girls topless
Click to expand...

>>but the guy was completely innocent imo.

No he wasn't. He made images of children which were classed as type 1. He pleaded guilty, which he was/is. As I mentioned above, the judge made exactly the right judgement within the law and sentencing guidelines - not a sex offender, no jail and the minimum Community service.

I don't agree with the prosecution at all - however within the existing laws it was the only course open to all concerned.

Ben
 
LadyLens said:
:eek: WHAT???? so its ok for them to wander the streets half naked with cleavage, midrif and most of thighs on display, but for god sake don't dare poke a camera in that direction? :bang:
Click to expand...


That seems to be about the size of it - I've seen her about since in Sainsbury's wearing LESS than she did on her shoot

Go figure :shrug:

DD
 
If it was a crime then the parents must be aiding and abetting without any doubt. :shrug:
(At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence.)
 
I don't agree with the prosecution at all - however within the existing laws it was the only course open to all concerned.
Click to expand...
:thumbs::thumbs:

The trouble here is one that has insidiously taken over all areas of our society and it's been the total disappearance of common sense.

No longer is anyone able to make a judgement call on anything from where you can park, what bank accounts you can have through to how laws are interpreted.
:'(:'(:'(:'(:'(
 
WHAT???? so its ok for them to wander the streets half naked with cleavage, midrif and most of thighs on display, but for god sake don't dare poke a camera in that direction?
Click to expand...

Indeed. What a weird society we live in.

I was asked to supervise bath time for a friend's two daughters (7 and 5); there was a highly amusing moment involving lots of water and attempted murder which the friend couldn't see. Had I taken a picture I would have committed an offence. I didn't take the picture, the friend didn't see her two daughters fighting in the bath and the moment only exists in my memory.

Ooops - I better watch out, the thought police will be round in a moment.

Ben
 
Why have i got the feeling that if a woman had made the the pictures, the case would have been thrown out of court..

Still, it's pretty pathetic what is happening these days with 'paedophilia'. When it's a photo shoot in which the parents were happy about.
 
Ajophotog said:
If it was a crime then the parents must be aiding and abetting without any doubt. :shrug:
Click to expand...

When on hols in Christchurch recently we passed an old outdoor paddling pool full of naked kids of 1 - 4 yrs old

Dead funny & cute watching them - but daren't point a camera anywhere near

Innocence is definitely 'lost' forever these days isn't it

Were those parents 'guilty' of encouraging paedos though? Or molesting them when they slapped sun-cream on?

:nuts::nuts::nuts:

DD
 
>>If it was a crime

which it was and still is...

> then the parents must be aiding and abetting without any doubt.

Indeed. And the CPS are showing just how silly the law is by not going after that offence as well.

Which is worse? the Tog getting 150 Hours community sentence, or the turmoil to the family of the children being taken into care whilst the offence of aiding and abetting the creation of class 1 images of children is investigated?

Ben
 
BenMottram said:
>>both the killer and i are punnished!

Legally that is not the same at all. You are not both punished for Murder...

Ben
Click to expand...

at no point have i stated that they both get done for murder but both are punished to some degree.

as mercman said why would you want something like this. whats wrong with a leotard. (sp)
 
ShawWellPete said:
I have photos of my children and nephews in the bath completely naked. Am I breaking the law?
Click to expand...

Yes, according to the letter of the law you are.

You could have your computer equipment seized, and suffer the same fate as the tog in the story, or worse.

I would edit your post if I were you, just in case the CPS are reading ;)

Ben.
 
im glad when i retook the hobby up again recently i joined the forum.Without it i would never have known what a minefield this hobby has had planted around it.Every one who has a camera irrespective of whether its for hobby or not, uses it for the kids whether or not naked in the paddling pool , also aunt maud showing her bloomers after one too many and numerous other family and holiday shots etc. Its the official family recorder for bringing back happy memories in years to come and shows what life etc was at that time. like gun owners will we have to have a license one day which states what one can and cant do and possess in black and white, with regular checks upon us.
 
Just for my tuppence worth, i think the key part of the article is this;

'has been prosecuted because the photos fell under the definition of child porn.
Under the legislation, the images of the two girls – aged 10 and 12 – were classed as level one child pornography'

I'm not a Pro tog, however, i would guess that this key bit of legislation would be handy for most / all photographers to know, to prevent this from happening to them.

It's a sorry state of affairs that it has to come to this and i really feel for the tog, but it's gotta be taken as a warning to others to get up to date with the law.

Just My opinion.

S
 
so who makes all these laws then ?? and more to the point who votes them in ?
 
>>so who makes all these laws then ??

The Daily Mail of course... ;)

>>who votes them in ?

The great British public :(

Ben
 
Wasn't Kate Moss photographed topless at 15?
So will Corinne Day be picking up litter with this poor sod?
 
spannerdude said:
Wasn't Kate Moss photographed topless at 15?
So will Corinne Day be picking up litter with this poor sod?
Click to expand...

Yup, went to school with her but she was 2 years above me... I'm 31 so that would make her 33ish I suppose, so that would have been about 18 years ago. Different world back then.
 
i think the whole situation is just crazy, you jus need to get the biggest disclamer and perental consent form known to man now just to do anything like this.
i give up
 
school photographers beware !

i am off to clear all data from my p.c`s i have topless photo`s of my 4 year old little boy :nono:. anyone who looks will now see i must be a p*** .

this bl**dy country wants to wake up and look at it`s laws that go back to the dark ages . 80 year old judges that let some body off with violent rape because the girl was asking for it .
to this extreme .
there was no complaint from a parent , its not as if they were selling there kids into prostitution .


god i wish i could get away from this dumping ground of a country :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top