Photographer prosecuted for fairy 'child porn'

[Toothie]

Im really confused about the response on this forum.

He took close up pics of naked children wtf was he thinking, alright there was no intent but still how stupid do you have to be?? I think the judge acted appropriately and so did the CPS who know where those pics would have ended up? As mentioned above there was no real reason for the children to be naked they could have worn leotards which would have kept them all save? More to the point the parents asked for the photos to be taken but how comfortable where the girls in front of the camera? In my line of work i find girls that age very uncomfortable about getting naked.

 

[DeadlySmurf]

i have not read the artical i am just going off what the first post says about taking portrate photos, if there was naked ness involved then he should of get a bit more than what he got even if it was a job there is a line were you wonder what they are for!

 

[Toothie]

i have not read the artical i am just going off what the first post says about taking portrate photos, if there was naked ness involved then he should of get a bit more than what he got even if it was a job there is a line were you wonder what they are for!

well i know photo labs will automatically report any pictures of naked children and the example picture shown is of a naked woman - if the children were dressed i don't think there would have been an issue.

 

[Deleted member 3428]

I think the problem is with the parents here putting their children in this predicament saying that, is this any different then the naked baby on the rug shot that although It's not my field of photography there are millions of images of this kind and I'm sure I have one of my son when he was a baby taken at a studio. I still think if a crime has been committed then the parents have to be prosecuted too and also the judge for not getting it right in the first place. Not long now and you will only be able to get a mild likeness of your family and not a real photograph in case some law is broken if you can find anyone to take a picture without fear of prosecution.

 

[mrgubby]

I find all this child photography crime a very strange concept, If anybody touched my children or any child that I knew I would do my best to make sure they couldn't ever do it again

But

if they took a "sneaky photo" of them & had a "knuckle shuffle" in their bedroom, who is being harmed ? nobody except the sick individual themselves .

You could argue that the photo could help a "looker" becoming a "toucher" but that is a completely different discussion

 

[Toothie]

I think the problem is with the parents here putting their children in this predicament saying that, is this any different then the naked baby on the rug shot that although It's not my field of photography there are millions of images of this kind and I'm sure I have one of my son when he was a baby taken at a studio. I still think if a crime has been committed then the parents have to be prosecuted too and also the judge for not getting it right in the first place. Not long now and you will only be able to get a mild likeness of your family and not a real photograph in case some law is broken.

Alby i would agree the parents also need prosecuting but i do not agree that prosecuting for taking photos of children naked in anyway makes it difficult for portrait togs.

In laods of my baby pics i was naked, in fact as a child i never had clothes on if the pictures are anything to go by. But you would have to break into my parents house to see them now with everybody putting there family pics online for everyone to see who knows what is being downloaded and by whom. I think thats the difference are there more paedophiles than there were probably not but there life has been made easier and its the children that need protection.

 

[kfridge]

more here and here

and it seems that he has given up on what was his main business link, but some of his pics can been seen here

"He pleaded guilty, thereby admitting he had done something wrong."

hmmm...

my gut reply to all this was, what a load of nonsence...but then again we only have the news articles to form our opinions - whereas the court had all the photographic evidence as well...

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Years ago, when I worked in a camera shop, we had developing franchise,we had a set of prints come through that depicted a well respected (I believe he is a lord now) member of the local community in the bath with his baby daughter. It was a completely harmless pic, but nowadays it would probably land him a jail sentence and a Dail Mail headline aling the lines of "Pervy Peer in Baby Bath Outrage -how will this effect house prices?"

 

[Rocket]

>>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

I agree partly, but feel its a world gone mad and obsesed by new laws, but contiune to use laws that date back to 1700.
Surely the parents should have duly been reprimanded as well, they are not so innocent in all this

 

[GarynLea]

Anne Geddes beware, they'll be after you next :rules:

 

[DiddyDave]

Alby made a point I was thinking of

Many (most perhaps) portrait togs will at some time Shoot babies, and it is very common for the parents to want that cute little butt shooting naked too - sometimes held in a naked parent's hands

(didn't Athena have a classic of this with a B&W naked tot in a dad's arms???)

So given that those that find kids 'interesting' in the wrong way don't necessarily have a time limit on how old they have to be before a sprog is 'interesting' - isn't shooting babies naked just as 'wrong' as a 10 yr old???

And if not, when does it become 'wrong' to shoot a kids butt naked ??? 2 yrs old? 4yrs? 6yrs?

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

DD

 

[DiddyDave]

Anne Geddes beware, they'll be after you next :rules:

Exactly !!!

DD

 

[Deleted member 3428]

Tis a sad world Ruth where you can't say what's what anymore and children are trying to be adult before their time and killing each other before they reach that time even, if I went back to my teens and someone told me the place you live is going to be like this I think I may well of questioned myself is it worth going there and having 2 children to bring into this pc, law gone crazy, mad mad world. The laws of the land I think have only brought paranoia to the country and made people too damn scared to even talk to each other in public. We can only dream of a better place in heaven

 

[lookup]

Okay, so a few of years ago I was at Chatsworth House with my wife and daughter, it was a hot day and loads of kids were playing in the cascade. When we looked at the photos I'd taken afterwards, in a couple of shots there were a couple of young girls (4/5/6-ish I suppose) in the background splashing around (topless) in just their underwear.

So, am I right in thinking that if this had been on film and not digital I could have landed up being prosecuted for making indecent images (after having them processed)?

That's crazy.

 

[Toothie]

Alby made a point I was thinking of

Many (most perhaps) portrait togs will at some time Shoot babies, and it is very common for the parents to want that cute little butt shooting naked too - sometimes held in a naked parent's hands

(didn't Athena have a classic of this with a B&W naked tot in a dad's arms???)

So given that those that find kids 'interesting' in the wrong way don't necessarily have a time limit on how old they have to be before a sprog is 'interesting' - isn't shooting babies naked just as 'wrong' as a 10 yr old???

And if not, when does it become 'wrong' to shoot a kids butt naked ??? 2 yrs old? 4yrs? 6yrs?

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

DD

Tis a sad world Ruth where you can't say what's what anymore and children are trying to be adult before their time and killing each other before they reach that time even, if I went back to my teens and someone told me the place you live is going to be like this I think I may well of questioned myself is it worth going there and having 2 children to bring into this pc, law gone crazy, mad mad world. The laws of the land I think have only brought paranoia to the country and made people too damn scared to even talk to each other in public. We can only dream of a better place in heaven

I agree with both those statements the world is a messed up place, but i would argue the tog in the original artical was having the children pose naked for a photo shoot he didn't take snaps of children playing and end up with some of them being naked which is where personally i draw the line.

As for naked babies im really not sure where i stand on this tbh as DD says the sick people of this world have no age limit its a very difficult area.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The photo below (sorry for the small image, it was the only one I could find online) is by renowned Glasgow photographer, Harry Benson.

It is currently on display at the Kelvingrove Museum in an exhibition of his work. You have to wonder, if he took this picture today whether he would be renowned as a photographer or vilified as a paedophile.....

 

[GarynLea]

As for naked babies im really not sure where i stand on this tbh as DD says the sick people of this world have no age limit its a very difficult area.

Maybe someone should test the water .... watch this space

 

[oldfart]

theres a big difference from a naked baby to a naked 12 year old. I wouldnt take a naked picture of my own 12 year old daughter, even in a fairy pose. In todays climate he was very naive but i would be smacking my camera over lawyers head for the bad advice


I was at Harry Benson exhibition in Glasgow a couple were looking at a really nice picture of couple of kids, i said to my friend he be named a p**** if he took that shot today, it is an innocent photo of a couple of street kids. They walked away i heard them taking, they i knew i was right.

 

[Mattfeliks]

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.

I assume you're joking, but if anyone is this afraid of the CPS, save yourself the paranoia and move to another country.

 

[Deleted member 3428]

I do not agree with any form of abuse in way but do somehow feel saddened for the future history if images like the one just posted is lost due to a minority, albeit sick group of people. Just take insect picture in future

 

[DiddyDave]

theres a big difference from a naked baby to a naked 12 year old. I wouldnt take a naked picture of my own 12 year old daughter, even in a fairy pose. In todays climate he was very naive but i would be smacking my camera over lawyers head for the bad advice

There may be a big difference in your (normal) eyes as the latter is nearing the age of sexual activity - even married sex in some countries I understand is ok by 13

But we're not talking about 'normal' people are we - not too long ago a babysitting uncle sexually assaulted and killed his baby niece not too far from me - which suggests he (and those like him) may find a naked newborn attractive - so should we be shooting them for others (i.e. parents) ???

Perhaps parents need to come in for a Shoot with their own CRB check :shrug::shrug::shrug:

DD

 

[Mattfeliks]

The photo below (sorry for the small image, it was the only one I could find online) is by renowned Glasgow photographer, Harry Benson.

It is currently on display at the Kelvingrove Museum in an exhibition of his work. You have to wonder, if he took this picture today whether he would be renowned as a photographer or vilified as a paedophile.....

I think the answer's obvious.

I have a couple of tog books that have images of children in them by famous photographers. None of them are nude or anything like that, but I can imagine that if those photos were taken in the present rather than 20 odd years ago, the togs responsible wouldn't be famous, but infamous.

 

[spannerdude]

And if not, when does it become 'wrong' to shoot a kids butt naked ??? 2 yrs old? 4yrs? 6yrs?

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

DD

I'd say the cut of point would fall between the age when their mothers send them out wearing a pair of jeans with "sexy" written across the a**e and a t-shirt bearing the legend "FCUK", and the age when they can be found throwing up outside a nightclub whilst photographing their own breasts for their social networking page. So about 10 then :shrug:
We live in a twisted society!

 

[Dangermouse]

This seems the judge had been on the fairy dust when passing sentence .... so my photos of a moth catterpilar are moth porn then hmmmmmmmmm

 

[the truth]

reading what the judge said, it does appear (like as everyone has said above) that his is not guilty!

stupid verdict indeed! those are saved for juries! *shakes his head*

 

[BenMottram]

>>I assume you're joking, but if anyone is this afraid of the CPS, save yourself the paranoia and move to another country

Lighten up dude!

I see no reason to move, but I do see a reason not to take pics of my (or any one else's) daughters.

LOL I wonder if there is an offence of making/possessing images of yourself in this context... My eldest has some rather saucy self portraits that she has taken on her phone, and she is only 15 so, technically, a child.

Ben

 

[animal168]

>>I assume you're joking, but if anyone is this afraid of the CPS, save yourself the paranoia and move to another country

Lighten up dude!

I see no reason to move, but I do see a reason not to take pics of my (or any one else's) daughters.

LOL I wonder if there is an offence of making/possessing images of yourself in this context... My eldest has some rather saucy self portraits that she has taken on her phone, and she is only 15 so, technically, a child.

Ben

can i see them?

 

[Sgt_Major]

WTH was he thinking?

Topless images of a 10 & 12 yr old girl?

I for one would NEVER agree to that image of my own daughter, I wouldnt even take that pic myself.

 

[animal168]

i looked up "la machine" on google pictures this aftie and there is a naked child on the first page?? if i clicked on the pic does that make me a peedo?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I'd say the cut of point would fall between the age when their mothers send them out wearing a pair of jeans with "sexy" written across the a**e and a t-shirt bearing the legend "FCUK", and the age when they can be found throwing up outside a nightclub whilst photographing their own breasts for their social networking page. So about 10 then :shrug:
We live in a twisted society!

 

[Kerioak]

The article said it was a level 1 pornography incident. I have been looking round the net and can find nothing that positively lists (for the UK) what the different levels are. Is it a child's age along with the level of clothing or what?

 

[Kev M]

I'm guessing there's a lot of daily mail readers on this forum from some of the reactions.

Forget for a moment the paranoid world you live in where all naked bodies are a form of pornography and your suspicion of the photographer's motives.

Give the photographer the benefit of doubt in that he had no sexual motives and neither did the parents. Now what did he do that was so wrong? (If the subjects in question were unhappy about this then it changes things but lets assume they were happy with it.)

When you ask "what the hell was he thinking?" do you think there's something wrong with him for the pictures he took or the fact that he should have given more thought to the disillusioned, paranoid society the socialist half-wits in power have created?

I'm starting to think this country is beyond repair.

 

[DiddyDave]

When you ask "what the hell was he thinking?" do you think there's something wrong with him for the pictures he took or the fact that he should have given more thought to the disillusioned, paranoid society the socialist half-wits in power have created?

That's it - and apparently that it's an unlawful thing to do these days

I shoot kids often, but I wouldn't have acceded to this request - not for suspicion of motive, but with an understanding of the daftness of the issues around it and a guess at the possible consequences

DD

 

[JohnW]

The article said it was a level 1 pornography incident. I have been looking round the net and can find nothing that positively lists (for the UK) what the different levels are. Is it a child's age along with the level of clothing or what?

This is the official definition for England and Wales

This guideline is taken from the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guideline Sexual Offences
Act 2003, published 30 April 2007
Key factors:
(a) The levels of seriousness (in ascending order) for sentencing for offences involving pornographic images are:
Level 1 Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity
Level 2 Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
Level 3 Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
Level 4 Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults
Level 5 Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal.
(b) Pseudo-photographs generally should be treated less seriously than real photographs.
(c) Starting points should be higher where the subject of the indecent photograph(s) is a child under 13.

 

[JohnW]

Then why prosecute him?!

Because he took level 1 pornographic images of children.

 

[Toothie]

I'm guessing there's a lot of daily mail readers on this forum from some of the reactions.

Forget for a moment the paranoid world you live in where all naked bodies are a form of pornography and your suspicion of the photographer's motives.

Give the photographer the benefit of doubt in that he had no sexual motives and neither did the parents. Now what did he do that was so wrong? (If the subjects in question were unhappy about this then it changes things but lets assume they were happy with it.)

When you ask "what the hell was he thinking?" do you think there's something wrong with him for the pictures he took or the fact that he should have given more thought to the disillusioned, paranoid society the socialist half-wits in power have created?

I'm starting to think this country is beyond repair.

I question his motives there was no really need for the children to be naked so why were they?? why did the parents want naked pictures of there children what did they intend to do with them? He was either extremely nieve to get involved or knew what he was doing was wrong.

 

[Foggy]

I question his motives there was no really need for the children to be naked so why were they?? why did the parents want naked pictures of there children what did they intend to do with them? He was either extremely nieve to get involved or knew what he was doing was wrong.

Just one thing, there is a difference between topless and naked, I don't believe they were naked.

 

[JohnW]

He needed a better lawyer, clearly, can't believe he lost that case !

He didn't lose as there wasn't a trial. He entered a guilty plea to a charge of taking level 1 pornographic images of children.

He had no way of denying that he took the pictures. The pictures were available for inspection so he couldn't deny that they were level 1. A not guilty plea would have been a waste of time.

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 ?

The Code of Practice for Prosecutors actually says that it must be in the public interest to prosecute. The prosecutor in this case clearly thinks it is in the public interest to demonstrate that child pornography is utterly unacceptable. So do I.

 

[Toothie]

Just one thing, there is a difference between topless and naked, I don't believe they were naked.

Well that may be my mistake, i got the impression they were which is where my view point comes from.

It would be intresting to see hear how the children felt about having the pictures taken which i think is the main point.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Level 5 Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal.

I can see a point where all the nature togs will be getting locked up

Btw, did you know that in Florida it is illegal to publicly display an image which shows a nipple? Which has lead to such silliness as this......