Photographer prosecuted for fairy 'child porn'

Kev M said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Whether the subjects were happy with it or not is irrelevant. Its not uncommon for victims of child abuse to be "happy with it" because they don't know any better. Doesn't mean its right.
 
Whilst he did inadvertently break a (perhaps overly specifitous) law...

I'd agree with this entirely.
Kev M said:
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?
Click to expand...

Also who decides what is and isn't an erotic position for a child?
 
Originally Posted by 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 said:
can i see them?
Click to expand...

Why ?
 
santana007 said:
god i wish i could get away from this dumping ground of a country :bang:
Click to expand...


I think this most days mate.....country is gone crazy With the PC brigade, and i can't see anyway back myself :bang:
 
Toothie said:
I question his motives there was no really need for the children to be naked so why were they??
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was part of the brief from the parents.

why did the parents want naked pictures of there children what did they intend to do with them?
Click to expand...

Probably the same thing your parents were doing with naked pictures of you.

Toothie said:
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.
Click to expand...

He was either extremely nieve to get involved or knew what he was doing was wrong.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps he's sick of complying with the nanny state we live in that breeds the paranoia (sp) and synicism of people like yourself and helps them to pass even more draconian laws.
 
Kev M said:
Perhaps it was part of the brief from the parents.

Which in it's self is worrying


Probably the same thing your parents were doing with naked pictures of you.

i wasnt posed naked for a pro tog i was playing naked on the beach or in the garden or whatever!



Or perhaps he's sick of complying with the nanny state we live in that breeds the paranoia (sp) and synicism of people like yourself and helps them to pass even more draconian laws.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with a nanny state and my position doesn't come from cynicism it come from living with and working with sexually abused children!
It is essentially now illegal to take photos of children naked or in sexual poses so yeah i question the motives of the parents and the tog as the desired images could have easyly been taken with the children in leotards!

Edit :
As stated before i may well be wrong about the whole naked thing which makes my point accidemic.
 
Toothie said:
I don't agree with a nanny state and my position doesn't come from cynicism it come from living with and working with sexually abused children!
It is essentially now illegal to take photos of children naked or in sexual poses so yeah i question the motives of the parents and the tog as the desired images could have easyly been taken with the children in leotards!

Edit :
As stated before i may well be wrong about the whole naked thing which makes my point accidemic.
Click to expand...


FFS!!!

Naked ≠ Sexual

Nudity = Naked

Sexual = Sexuality

The two can combine to make Sexual Nudity = Naked Sexuality

I wish the world in general would get this into it's thick skull!!!!!!!!

Sure the tog was dumb to do what he did but it doesn't mean he had an ulterior motive other than earning a little bit more money.
 
if you think the parents wanted photos of their children for inappropriate means why would they call someone else in to take the photo instead of doing it themselves?
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
FFS!!!

Naked ≠ Sexual

Nudity = Naked

Sexual = Sexuality

The two can combine to make Sexual Nudity = Naked Sexuality

I wish the world in general would get this into it's thick skull!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

im not suggesting naked = sexual im questioning the motives of parents that what naked picture of their children taken by a pro.

Some one said earlier that they didnt think the children were naked in which case my pov makes no sence and i have to wonder why they were taken to court in the first place.

most of the time i am at work we have at least one inpatient that is there because they have been abused in some way and in the uk one child a week is killed by their parents. and its this knowledge along with the child protection training that i have attended that makes me question the motives of those involved.
 
There's some strange folk op nawf. And that, apparently, includes judges. Madness, utter madness.
 
Kev M said:
if you think the parents wanted photos of their children for inappropriate means why would they call someone else in to take the photo instead of doing it themselves?
Click to expand...

i really don't know and i am not saying they did, i just think its possible that it wasn't as innocent as it seemed and there were either really really stupid or they had questionable motives.

I guess my point is all pornographic photos of children should be investigated and yes it should be consistently made clear that it is not acceptable.

from the image in the article he is shoot glammor nude pictures of women which is fine do i think its acceptable to take picture of children like this no i don't.

edit you can make chilren look like fairies without them being naked
 
Toothie said:
im not suggesting naked = sexual im questioning the motives of parents that what naked picture of their children taken by a pro.

Some one said earlier that they didnt think the children were naked in which case my pov makes no sence and i have to wonder why they were taken to court in the first place.

most of the time i am at work we have at least one inpatient that is there because they have been abused in some way and in the uk one child a week is killed by their parents. and its this knowledge along with the child protection training that i have attended that makes me question the motives of those involved.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell the child could have been clothed so long as the pose was sexualised (in some anonymous officials' view), but was actually topless according to yorkshire post.

The motive for having a pro do it was clear, to make that whimsical fairy image the pro specialised in.

Just because you work with abused children is no reason to throw out offensive and suspicious comments left, right, and centre... Imagine if soldiers were unable to separate their work and home lives in this way.
 
We were stopped at a local show whilst taking test shots of skateboarders practising for a display that was about to take place. The security person advised us it was illegal to take pics of children. I countered that we were allowed to take their pics as they were part of an official display and their were plenty of other people with cameras there.

The "official" responded that we could take their pics during the display, but taking pics whilst they were practising wasn't allowed as they were underage :thinking:
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
As far as I can tell the child could have been clothed so long as the pose was sexualised (in some anonymous officials' view), but was actually topless according to yorkshire post.

The motive for having a pro do it was clear, to make that whimsical fairy image the pro specialised in.

Just because you work with abused children is no reason to throw out offensive and suspicious comments left, right, and centre... Imagine if soldiers were unable to separate their work and home lives in this way.
Click to expand...

I have made my view clear, before this turns into personal attacks im leaving
 
I think the trouble is not just things like this. I used to work in a very well known public school and schools being schools some children got upset from time to time and I remember teachers not feeling right about comforting the kids in their moment of need. It seems this country is tarring everybody with the same brush, a paedophile, it's no wonder our children are growing before their time as we all have to treat them as adults and are unable to offer support and comfort or a reassuring hug without being labled. Only the other day I read a post on here, someone taking a picture of a rusty ship wreck and a couple of louts shouting P**** at him. Anyway that's my rant over with on this thread.
 
Haven't read through all the posts in this thread, but this is just another example of PC gone mad imo :cuckoo:
 
can we be mindful of insulting each other please folks, mostly sensible debate here can be ruined fast by quick replies. think before posting!
 
Toothie said:
I guess my point is all pornographic photos of children should be investigated and yes it should be consistently made clear that it is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

And here in lies part of the problem, average joe's inability to spereate nudity from pornography. *********removed*********
 
Kev M said:
And here in lies part of the problem, average joe's inability to spereate nudity from pornography. As a photographer I'd have thought you'd be able to tell that not all nudity is pornographic yet you instantly assume that it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think Toothie has assumed anything of the sort, and I find your comments a wee bit too close to an 'attack' there too - chill pill ???

Photographing a child nude is clearly considered an offence if it can be implied to be sexual in any way - what I consider tame to others may be sexual, so it's a dodgy area

That families take shots of their own kids is one thing, but Pro's need to be a bit more careful in how things can be construed - and here I feel he was an idiot at best

DD
 
( even) If the guys ( and the parents) motives were honourable
I think that he was a little naive (and I guess he knows that now) in todays over protective PC gone mad society.
The other "mistake" he made was to send them to a lab that checked the prints by hand
I am sure there are others that are done electronically?
To me the Judges "statement" seems to be apologetic as he is passing sentence,
as though within some archaic law, that was what is required.
And yes I too have the nekid kids ( mine that is) on the beach shots, as everyone of my generation did, and
we (I) took them without fear of being "labled" or lynched!
 
Apologies if it comes accross as a personal attack but I wanted to highlight what toothie said as something which is a wider problem that I think has partly lead us to the problem we find ourselves in now.

You're right, the last part of my statement was a little harsh and I take it back and apologise.
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
As far as I can tell the child could have been clothed so long as the pose was sexualised (in some anonymous officials' view)
Click to expand...
Taking indecent images of children is an offence which can be heard in either a Magistrates Court or a Crown Court.

If the person charged with the offence bases his defence on his opinion that the images were lawful he can put that to the court. Both sides will have all the time they need to explain their view. The decision makers - either 3 JPs or a jury of 12 - will listen to what is said, look at the pictures and make up their own minds.

In a Magistrates Court the JPs will give reasons for their decision. A jury does not give reasons although, in the event of a guilty verdict, the judge will give reasons for his sentence which will be related to the level of indecency.


Not quite the same as "some anonymous officials' view" .
 
minimeeze said:
Haven't read through all the posts in this thread, but this is just another example of PC gone mad imo :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
The photographer in question pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children. You consider the whole matter to be PC gone mad.

This is a genuine enquiry and not an attempt to put words into your mouth. Is it the case that you would have no laws to control the making of images of children? Or would you allow anything as long as the parents approve?
 
Cobra said:
as though within some archaic law
Click to expand...

Making indecent images of children is covered by s1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and s160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Not that archaic.
 
I wonder how much of the photographers decision to plead guilty was down to the fact that despite his innocence, (and by that I don't mean he didn't break the law but that he had no intention of creating images of children for perverse reason) that his solicitor would have told him his chances were slim and if he pleaded not guilty he would probably have faced a stiffer sentence, maybe a stretch inside and have been branded a p**** at the same time.

Part of the reason I think reduced sentences for pleading guilty are a bad idea.
 
I have read this artical now and he was hired to do the job and in that respect i dont think he should be prosicuted for it, but there is something i am concerened about.
In the artical it says that he takes these photos and then make them look like fairies and thats his speciality. super imposing them onto the flower, why would he need prints of the kids topless to do this, looking at the style of the pic there not that risky.
so i dont see why he would need these topless prints doing? surly the editing would be done in PS and then there would be no "bits" on show if it was in the same style?
 
DeadlySmurf said:
I have read this artical now and he was hired to do the job and in that respect i dont think he should be prosicuted for it, but there is something i am concerened about.
In the artical it says that he takes these photos and then make them look like fairies and thats his speciality. super imposing them onto the flower, why would he need prints of the kids topless to do this, looking at the style of the pic there not that risky.
so i dont see why he would need these topless prints doing? surly the editing would be done in PS and then there would be no "bits" on show if it was in the same style?
Click to expand...

Interesting point arises from that bit...

I've watched various film version of Peter Pan, and even seen it in Panto - Fairies don't appear naked there do they???

Even online a (quick search) almost all Fairy pics are clothed

He made a very bad choice :cuckoo:

DD
 
i realise that people are always trying to corner new markets, but the idea of specialising in fairy images never even crossed my mind.....
 
JohnW said:
The photographer in question pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children. You consider the whole matter to be PC gone mad.

This is a genuine enquiry and not an attempt to put words into your mouth. Is it the case that you would have no laws to control the making of images of children? Or would you allow anything as long as the parents approve?
Click to expand...

All we know is the snippet of info printed in the paper - and they're always right aren't they?

I have what would be considered 'indecent' images in my photo collection. Does that make me guilty of child pornography? The images are of my niece when she was about 2 years old - running around my living room naked. I also have images of her little brother taken when he was a few hours old - naked. How many people have naked or 'indecent' pictures of their children? Does that make it wrong? Society has just gone mad and OTT when it comes to things like this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for perverts here - I think they should be hung, drawn and quartered, but this whole 'images of children' thing just really gets my goat.
 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
more fairy photos
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

is their nothing new to try im fed up of photogs. copying eachother britain must be full of fairy photogs. lately:shrug:

play with fire prepared to get burnt

take pics of underage girls with no tops on regardless of parents permission or not then be prepared to do bird ......he got lucky
 
Originally Posted by Cobra
as though within some archaic law
Click to expand...
JohnW said:
Making indecent images of children is covered by s1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and s160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Not that archaic.
Click to expand...

20 & 30 year old laws in todays fast moving society can be archaic,
Though that wasn't really the point I was making, more that the judge was "bound" by some archaic law,
to pass sentance based on a latter day legislation that he felt was "unfair" :thumbs:
 
I think the debate here is what is meant by "indecent". According to various dictionaries its ... "morally offensive, especially in a sexual way"

Morally offensive to todays society? I dont think so as has already been said, when you see girls of a similar age walking through town in various states of undress.

I can understand and uphold laws to protect children from harmful interest but I see very little harm in this case.

As I mentioned earlier, Anne Geddes and various other artistic photographers have made a very lucrative business from taking pictures of naked children, they even appear in most greetings card shops for purchase, yet the PC brigade havent banned this form of "indecent" advertising.
 
I'm really struggling to see why anyone has any problem with this case.

The tog pleaded guilty.
Any and all discussion about the nature of the pictures ends there, doesn't it? The tog, who has seen the actual pictures (something we haven't), agrees they are level 1 pornography, he pleaded guilty. I'm going to go with that.

The judge, recognizing that he isn't dealing with a sick P****, seems to have passed the lightest sentence open to him.

The CPS found a guy who had taken Level 1 pornographic images of children, they prosecuted him for that offense. I don't have any problem with the CPS prosecuting those who take porno images of children.

The parents don't appear to be part of a P**** ring, they didn't break the law. They weren't looking for pornographic pictures of their kids. If they had been, they would then be open to prosecution.

Oh, and laws made in the 70's and 80's WERE made in "todays fast moving society". The 50's were a different time, not the 80's.

The artists with questionable images most likely (I'm not looking up all of their careers) already were established artists and could easily justify their images as part of their established art. They weren't going to get away with anything too explicit.
 
Having read the articles and the replies in this thread I'm left with 1 point which I think covers everything in this case and with the issues of society today:

Whatever happened to common sense?

It seems as though nobody is allowed to make a judgement call anymore. Everything has to have a rule, directive or, in short, someone to blame!

That well known legal claims company that advertise "Where there's blame, there's a claim" are probably laughing because in today's society, there's ALWAYS blame therefore always a claim!
 
NathanJT said:
Having read the articles and the replies in this thread I'm left with 1 point which I think covers everything in this case and with the issues of society today:

Whatever happened to common sense?

It seems as though nobody is allowed to make a judgement call anymore. Everything has to have a rule, directive or, in short, someone to blame!

That well known legal claims company that advertise "Where there's blame, there's a claim" are probably laughing because in today's society, there's ALWAYS blame therefore always a claim!
Click to expand...

Have to say I'm totally with you on this one. I absolutely despair at the human race and its collective diminishing brain. Whatever happened to the path of enlightenment? Eh, that was back there mate on the left, you appear to be on the road to f***ing nowhere.
 
NathanJT said:
Having read the articles and the replies in this thread I'm left with 1 point which I think covers everything in this case and with the issues of society today:

Whatever happened to common sense?

It seems as though nobody is allowed to make a judgement call anymore. Everything has to have a rule, directive or, in short, someone to blame!

That well known legal claims company that advertise "Where there's blame, there's a claim" are probably laughing because in today's society, there's ALWAYS blame therefore always a claim!
Click to expand...


Totally agree with your comments, unfortunately common sense very rarely prevails in our now sick distorted country, and the worrying thing is i can only see it getting worse :shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top