Shooting under 18 in underwear....

Status
Not open for further replies.
.

There's no justification for taking images of a minor - even under the age of 18. Your just getting into a world of hurt.

Regards

:)

I'm assuming you lasts sentance is missing a few words, should it read

There's no justification for taking these type of images of a minor

by definition any mintor will be under 18
 
Bizarre, isn't it?

A young woman can obtain contraception from a GP - which implies that she is sexually active - under the age of 16 without her parents knowledge or consent and, as a rule, the doctor can't even inform them. She can get married, have a consensual sexual relationship and have children when she is 16; but the state and the courts have the right to decide whether photographs that she requested, and consented to, are indecent if she is under 18.

Notice how the consent and approval of the parents has been sidelined? The state has decided that a girl can get contraception before she turns 16, without the parents knowledge, and the parents don't have the right to make decisions about photographing their own children because the state knows better.
 
Bizarre, isn't it?

A young woman can obtain contraception from a GP - which implies that she is sexually active - under the age of 16 without her parents knowledge or consent and, as a rule, the doctor can't even inform them. She can get married, have a consensual sexual relationship and have children when she is 16; but the state and the courts have the right to decide whether photographs that she requested, and consented to, are indecent if she is under 18.

Notice how the consent and approval of the parents has been sidelined? The state has decided that a girl can get contraception before she turns 16, without the parents knowledge, and the parents don't have the right to make decisions about photographing their own children because the state knows better.


the world we live in is an odd one, the main reason the change in the law relating to ages came about due to so many issues (I think - don't quote me on this) with the actual grading of images, i.e. working out if an image was of a 15/16 year old, with the age change its a little easier to work out if its a minor or not.
 
i had a similar issue to this with a coupple of local bands, made sure the parents were attending the gig and made sure i had permission in advance from parents to photograph the gig, was alot of hassle at my end but taught me alot about photography, if someone asked now i wouldnt bother too much hassle for the monies

To be fair, my shooting wasn't for money, and I just got a few shots of some people in the audience who seemed to want to get in front of the lens. Thousands attended over the course of the weekend, so it would have been tricky to get parental consent. :D

Not really in the same ballpark as what's being discussed here, but I was just highlighting how difficult it is to tell a person's age at times. Especially if they're drinking a pint of beer they've bought at the venue. :rules:
 
I agree not worth the bother, but for someone who works in child protection to state that at 16 she has reached the age of consent, while the sexual offences act (which certainly applies here) specifically states the age of a minor is 18 is somewhat surprising

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02

edit and it also specifiically states that making indecent pictures of a child is illegal

No 18 years as per the sexual offences act and its very specific comments about age

Ah, I stand corrected on that point. And I agree that the SOA03 changed the age, however in reality it still isnt as clear cut as to be illegal outright.

I am aware of a local case where images were taken that were indecent and the young person was 16 at the time leading to no prosecution - although that may be due to the date of the offence.

The SOA is deliberately very vague - namely in the definition of indecent. There are also issues of consent which come into bearing. What the OP was asking does not sound as though it is an offence, becuase it is a consenting person asking for photos to be taken which are not indecent and as the photographer is presumably taking the photos to give to the girl, there are unlikely to be further offences of distribution etc. (just had a chat with my pet Police sergeant to clarify). However, consent would need to be clearly established and there is the minefield of retracted consent later on, which would cause problems.

It is still not an offence, however does create a whole load of problems down the line.

This statement is wrong, since 2003 the definition of a child was raised from 16 to 18 for photos. The problem with photographing under 18's is the definition of "Indecent"... this is of course easy to see when the photos are perverted, but not so clear as you reach the margins around "glamour".

Indecent is a better term than perverted, but still as unclear by way of definition, but yeah. Acknowledged about the age.
 
Bizarre, isn't it?

A young woman can obtain contraception from a GP - which implies that she is sexually active - under the age of 16 without her parents knowledge or consent and, as a rule, the doctor can't even inform them. She can get married, have a consensual sexual relationship and have children when she is 16; but the state and the courts have the right to decide whether photographs that she requested, and consented to, are indecent if she is under 18.

Notice how the consent and approval of the parents has been sidelined? The state has decided that a girl can get contraception before she turns 16, without the parents knowledge, and the parents don't have the right to make decisions about photographing their own children because the state knows better.

The law it is there for their protection and to stop child exploitation, the pill is there to stop them getting pregnant. There is a difference between under 16's having sex with people of their own age and under 18's selling pictures of themselves either with there concent or having adults take them against their will for sexual gratification. The law is never going to be perfect but it is there for a reason and if it helps put child sex offenders away long may it stay IMO.
 
Last edited:
actually you can take indecent shots of someone 16-17 but you can't keep them and she/he can't show them to any one PMSL.

Bizarre, isn't it?

A young woman can obtain contraception from a GP - which implies that she is sexually active - under the age of 16 without her parents knowledge or consent and, as a rule, the doctor can't even inform them. She can get married, have a consensual sexual relationship and have children when she is 16; but the state and the courts have the right to decide whether photographs that she requested, and consented to, are indecent if she is under 18.

Notice how the consent and approval of the parents has been sidelined? The state has decided that a girl can get contraception before she turns 16, without the parents knowledge, and the parents don't have the right to make decisions about photographing their own children because the state knows better.
 
A level 1 Image is classed as 'Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity'. I won't go into the other levels on the board but obviously the higher they get the worse they are.

Again OP, I wouldn't even consider this myself. I have on multiple occasions seen images of girls in underwear, swimwear etc, and these have been graded as level 1 images.

I'm not saying they will get into trouble for it, but is it worth taking the risk?
 
I'm a female photographer and I wouldn't take this job. Even with guardians, chaperones, etc on both sides, the potential for comeback is too high.
I've recently taken fashion (and in one case ballet) images of 2 girls under 18, but underwear is a line I wouldn't cross without proof the model is 18.
 
yep, again there's alot of issue's with what we do, we actually check the work the police have done and ensure that the images they have graded are correctly done so, on so many occasions we've found that the images they have classed as children are actually adults, or its been impossible to tell.

e.g. Melissa Ashley, who has been known to turn up in court and give evidence of her age at the time images of her were made to assist the defence in such cases. The police & CPS dropped the ball on that one a few years ago (and really, really don't put that name into google image search if you are at work :naughty: )

Since you work in this field, how does "level 1" work as related to, for example:

The topless pictures of Kate Moss (aged 15 or 16 - given the exhibition was titled "Fifteen" I'm going to guess the former) exhibited in London at Gimpel fils in 2006, some of which were featured in (amongst other places) the Daily Telegraph Saturday glossy magazine and which a quick search confirms are still on the tog's website.

The nudes of Sally Mann's pre-pubescent children exhibited in London very recently at "The Photographers gallery" (and the book "Immediate family", sold by Amazon amongst others).

How about a picture of me (very obviously aged under 18) lying naked on my back, legs spread with my 'man bits' clearly on display? I know where just such a picture is and the negative as well.

Yet some underwear shots of a 16 year old might be illegal?

:shrug:
 
The law it is there for their protection and to stop child exploitation, the pill is there to stop them getting pregnant. There is a difference between under 16's having sex with people of their own age and under 18's selling pictures of themselves either with there concent or having adults take them against their will for sexual gratification. The law is never going to be perfect but it is there for a reason and if it helps put child sex offenders away long may it stay IMO.

Aren't kids under 16 having sex, child sex offenders? They're breaking the law after all. Never mind, I know what you mean and I have no problem at all with prosecuting sexual predators. That wasn't the purpose of my post, but to return to yours.

The best way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid having sex. If we're going to allow children - and these are kids - under 16 to go on the pill let's stop being hypocritical about it and just change the age of consent. It seems to be largely ignored anyway. It's easy enough to protect these girls against exploitation by capping the age difference with the partner.

This thread isn't about under 18s selling photographs of themselves, or sexual predators forcing them to pose for photographs. I still maintain that a girl who is considered old enough to get married (without parental consent in Scotland), have children and have legal sexual relationships is quite old enough to make her own decisions about being photographed. Compulsion, or force, is another matter and can be dealt with by the appropriate legislation.
 
To be hones't it's more about intent... why was the image created, was there numerous images on the computer, was the defendant searching for such images, if so can the prosecution prove he/she was searching for such images. Was there a large number of indecent images of children found? or was it a very small number, where were they found, how did they get there etc

That an more is part of what I do... identify what, how, when, where etc, and I try to ensure that the CPS and the officers have done their jobs properly.

The issues with the police is that they are overworked, and often a case will come to us with little or no investigation into the what, how, when, where. I see cases where the images have been graded and thats it, no explanation as to how they got there, in one case one of my collegues found that they had charged someone on an internet 'pop up'. these things are part an parcel of the job.

I have seen inconsistencies many times, and thus its hard to make sense of the law.

Just for all to be aware, the laws changed again recently, any indecent images depicting children, i.e. digital pictures, 3d renders, tracings, digitally enhanced/photo shopped images could also get you into trouble.
 
Since you work in this field, how does "level 1" work as related to, for example:

The topless pictures of Kate Moss (aged 15 or 16 - given the exhibition was titled "Fifteen" I'm going to guess the former) exhibited in London at Gimpel fils in 2006, some of which were featured in (amongst other places) the Daily Telegraph Saturday glossy magazine and which a quick search confirms are still on the tog's website.

The nudes of Sally Mann's pre-pubescent children exhibited in London very recently at "The Photographers gallery" (and the book "Immediate family", sold by Amazon amongst others).

How about a picture of me (very obviously aged under 18) lying naked on my back, legs spread with my 'man bits' clearly on display? I know where just such a picture is and the negative as well.

Yet some underwear shots of a 16 year old might be illegal?

:shrug:

Therein lies the dilemma.... I did a quick search on the Kate Moss and Sally Mann photos and although they show a lot of skin, they are not done in a sexually provocative way which would make them indecent in my understanding of the guidelines.... but I would not want to be the photographer who took similar photos and subsequently having to justify them after a complaint. I am avoiding imagining the photo of you...

EDIT... changed to "done in a sexually provocative way"
 
Last edited:
Therein lies the dilema.... I did a quick search on the Kate Moss and Sally Mann photos and although they show a lot of skin, they are not done in and indecent way which would not make them indecent in my understanding of the guidelines.... but I would not want to be the photographer who took similar photos and subsequently having to justify them after a complaint. I am avoiding imagining the photo of you...

LOL - I was doing the same, didn't want to have to think about that whilst I sip my tea!!!! :confused:
 
Aren't kids under 16 having sex, child sex offenders? They're breaking the law after all. Never mind, I know what you mean and I have no problem at all with prosecuting sexual predators. That wasn't the purpose of my post, but to return to yours.

The best way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid having sex. If we're going to allow children - and these are kids - under 16 to go on the pill let's stop being hypocritical about it and just change the age of consent. It seems to be largely ignored anyway. It's easy enough to protect these girls against exploitation by capping the age difference with the partner.

This thread isn't about under 18s selling photographs of themselves, or sexual predators forcing them to pose for photographs. I still maintain that a girl who is considered old enough to get married (without parental consent in Scotland), have children and have legal sexual relationships is quite old enough to make her own decisions about being photographed. Compulsion, or force, is another matter and can be dealt with by the appropriate legislation.

I agree and in a perfect world kids would still be happy to play house, watch tv and hold hands but times have changed. The age of consent is there to stop childern being coersted/groomed or forcred into sex. Yes other legislation could come in but what? The law isn't perfect but no other Law would be and would probably just confuse what is already a very confusing matter.

No the thread is about the law around child exploitation and as you say the are still kids at the end of the day who think at 16 or 17 they know what they want and are never wrong as I rememmebr when I was that age I was more wrong than right. Lets face it our society is crumbling round us does a 16yo really need pictures of herself half naked taken by a pro photographer? Gettign a bit off topic here.
 
How about a picture of me (very obviously aged under 18) lying naked on my back, legs spread with my 'man bits' clearly on display? I know where just such a picture is and the negative as well.

Yet some underwear shots of a 16 year old might be illegal?

:shrug:

Why :thinking:? And why would you do it on film? ........ Do you have problems getting the ladies :LOL:? only messing, but i did just have to put my pepporami back in my lunch box :thumbsdown:.
 
To be hones't it's more about intent...

That makes it worse - either an image is "indecent" and therefore posession of it is illegal or it isn't. It isn't a matter of how many or if they were searched for, paid for or anything else. The legislation says nothing about any of that.

fuzed said:
Just for all to be aware, the laws changed again recently, any indecent images depicting children, i.e. digital pictures, 3d renders, tracings, digitally enhanced/photo shopped images could also get you into trouble.

Or cartoons. Yes really. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which got rushed through and just made porogation before the general election.

Incidentally, since I've put a few people off their lunch :naughty:, the picture of me could be given the title "baby's first bath time" or something like that, since that is what it protrays. Me, removed from the bath, laying on a towel. As I said, very obviously under 18 ;). But it shouldn't matter if the person is one a few days old or a few days short of their 18th birthday, the law as written makes no distinction. This is what I'm trying to get at, if the police & CPS are putting their own interpretations on what does or does not contravene it, what is the ordinary person supposed to do?

Clarity is needed and our lawmakers aren't providing it.
 
That makes it worse - either an image is "indecent" and therefore posession of it is illegal or it isn't. It isn't a matter of how many or if they were searched for, paid for or anything else. The legislation says nothing about any of that.



Or cartoons. Yes really. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which got rushed through and just made porogation before the general election.

Incidentally, since I've put a few people off their lunch :naughty:, the picture of me could be given the title "baby's first bath time" or something like that, since that is what it protrays. Me, removed from the bath, laying on a towel. As I said, very obviously under 18 ;). But it shouldn't matter if the person is one a few days old or a few days short of their 18th birthday, the law as written makes no distinction. This is what I'm trying to get at, if the police & CPS are putting their own interpretations on what does or does not contravene it, what is the ordinary person supposed to do?

Clarity is needed and our lawmakers aren't providing it.

Do what police and the rest of the country, especially footie officials, should do and seem to be incapable of..... use comman sence and discretion. You are being asked to be baby feed the law and it drives me MAD!!!!! How can any law/legislation possibly cover every set of circumstnances, there would be even longer queues in our courts and police stations.
 
Last edited:
That makes it worse - either an image is "indecent" and therefore posession of it is illegal or it isn't. It isn't a matter of how many or if they were searched for, paid for or anything else. The legislation says nothing about any of that.



Or cartoons. Yes really. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which got rushed through and just made porogation before the general election.

Incidentally, since I've put a few people off their lunch :naughty:, the picture of me could be given the title "baby's first bath time" or something like that, since that is what it protrays. Me, removed from the bath, laying on a towel. As I said, very obviously under 18 ;). But it shouldn't matter if the person is one a few days old or a few days short of their 18th birthday, the law as written makes no distinction. This is what I'm trying to get at, if the police & CPS are putting their own interpretations on what does or does not contravene it, what is the ordinary person supposed to do?

Clarity is needed and our lawmakers aren't providing it.

indeed I agree with you... its just the way the law is, there's only so much that we can do, we as professionals have to do our utmost to ensure that we do what is right by the court, its my duty as a expert in this to ensure that my findings are true, if the CPS have screwed up the case will get thrown out, or the defendant will be found innocent.

Some cases should never get to court. I just don't understand how on earth the CPS can even let some of the cases go to prosecution on the little evidence they have.

clarity is important as it would make my job a hell of alot easier, but then I do the techie stuff and leave it for the barristers to fight it out!!!
 
That makes it worse - either an image is "indecent" and therefore posession of it is illegal or it isn't. It isn't a matter of how many or if they were searched for, paid for or anything else. The legislation says nothing about any of that.

And the most frustrating part of the legislation is that there is no definition of what indecent is, other than most people would find the image to be indecent. :thinking:

Or cartoons. Yes really. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which got rushed through and just made porogation before the general election.

Incidentally, since I've put a few people off their lunch :naughty:, the picture of me could be given the title "baby's first bath time" or something like that, since that is what it protrays. Me, removed from the bath, laying on a towel. As I said, very obviously under 18 ;). But it shouldn't matter if the person is one a few days old or a few days short of their 18th birthday, the law as written makes no distinction. This is what I'm trying to get at, if the police & CPS are putting their own interpretations on what does or does not contravene it, what is the ordinary person supposed to do?

Clarity is needed and our lawmakers aren't providing it.

The law is deliberately vague. Partly so that they can take individual cases and deal with them with existing legislation instead of having to micromanage every possible scenario and partly because if the legislation becomes too prescriptive, law-makers/enforcers will not deal with things that fall outside of the legislation and offenders will look for ways to circumvent the laws. Also, whilst the Police and CPS may attempt to put their own interpretations upon the law, it's the Courts that make the judgements and therefore shape it.
 
I agree and in a perfect world kids would still be happy to play house, watch tv and hold hands but times have changed. The age of consent is there to stop childern being coersted/groomed or forcred into sex. Yes other legislation could come in but what? The law isn't perfect but no other Law would be and would probably just confuse what is already a very confusing matter.

Times have changed, but I'm not sure that human nature has. The age of consent was raised from 12 to 16 in the C19th AFAIK, to protect girls from exploitation, so we're agreed on the reasoning behind it. I do think this should be revisited, not necessarily changed, but reconsidered. Under age girls have legal access to contraception, which is tantamount to telling them and their partners that it's perfectly all right to break the law and have sex when you are 14, or whatever, providing you use contraception. There are no sanctions or penalties because this would defeat the purpose of providing contraception, and the law is ignored. This brings the rule of law into disrepute, which has widespread implications, so why not recognise this and amend the age of consent? Other European countries have recognised the realities and taken this step, with appropriate safeguards.

No the thread is about the law around child exploitation and as you say the are still kids at the end of the day who think at 16 or 17 they know what they want and are never wrong as I rememmebr when I was that age I was more wrong than right. Lets face it our society is crumbling round us does a 16yo really need pictures of herself half naked taken by a pro photographer? Gettign a bit off topic here.

The thread is not about child exploitation. It's about whether it is legal and sensible to take shots of a 16 year old girl in her underwear, at her own request. It appears that it is not, and my original post simply pointed out that this is bizarre. We consider girls of 14, and probably younger, sufficiently responsible to make decisions about contraception and sexual relationships themselves, and girls of 16 can marry and/or have sex quite legally, but can't give their own consent to these photographs?

As to whether our society is crumbling, I don't know, but I don't think so.
 
who exactly determines what is decent or indecent?

Personally, I would run a mile from the Job, but just wondering where or what the line is.
 
on the same subject but slightly off topic... does it happen that the girl (or boy i wont discriminate) ever say there 18 and you doubt they are, would you ask for ID or still ask for a guardians permission, odd one, just a thought :)

I would actually photocopy the ID and keep a copy for future reference

who exactly determines what is decent or indecent?

Personally, I would run a mile from the Job, but just wondering where or what the line is.

Initially the police following their guidelines, then the CPS following theirs, but ultimately it is the courts who decide whether or not an image is indecent.
As said though, by the time you get that far its to late, the damage is already done.

I find it disconcerting that an adult of any age can have sex with a 16 yr old, so see her in the flesh naked, etc etc.
They commit no offence whether they be 16 or 60 yrs old, yet if the same people posses an image of her naked they can be arrested and tried as a paedophile.

Our laws are outdated and an ass, they need updating starting with the age of consent and moving on from there.
If the law gave the age of consent as 14 but with a maximum age gap of 3 yrs between partners until the age of 18 it would make things easier to enforce all round, it would decriminalise teenage sex and could have a clause written in that repealed simple possession of an image for those under 18, distributing would still be an offence.
It would then set a clear cut point of 18 for an adult to both sleep with and photograph a younger woman, something that to me seems like common sense whilst also allowing the easier prosecution of those having sex with minors.
We also need the law changing so that the age of responsibility where someone is deemed an adult by the police at the age of 16 in respect to criminal charging etc, equalised with the age of majority (18).

With all these differing ages for different things its a minefield full of loopholes that some exploit and lack of knowledge that leads to some togs ending up in hot water.
Oh and remember the same could apply if you lend your camera to someone and unknown to you illegal material is left on it.
 
Last edited:
Under age girls have legal access to contraception, which is tantamount to telling them and their partners that it's perfectly all right to break the law and have sex when you are 14, or whatever, providing you use contraception.

Do people really believe this? For a start there are more reasons than just providing contraception as to why the pill is prescribed to girls. Secondly, kids have been having sex under age since forever. Prescribing the pill doesnt encourage it, it is an attempt to prevent teenage pregnancies. it certainly isnt telling them that it is OK to break the law, and weilding the law as an attempt to prevent underage consenting sex between peers has proven impopssible.

There are no sanctions or penalties because this would defeat the purpose of providing contraception, and the law is ignored. This brings the rule of law into disrepute, which has widespread implications, so why not recognise this and amend the age of consent? Other European countries have recognised the realities and taken this step, with appropriate safeguards.

Do you mean reduce the age of consent? Sounds like a plan. :wacky:

The thread is not about child exploitation. It's about whether it is legal and sensible to take shots of a 16 year old girl in her underwear, at her own request.

Legal? Yes. Sensible? No. Mainly because the legalities are a little vague and despite the fact that unless he was actually taking indecent photos, he would be doing nothing wrong, but the consequences of any mud being cast would and could be disastrous.

It appears that it is not, and my original post simply pointed out that this is bizarre. We consider girls of 14, and probably younger, sufficiently responsible to make decisions about contraception and sexual relationships themselves, and girls of 16 can marry and/or have sex quite legally, but can't give their own consent to these photographs?

You know it isnt a given that GPs have to prescribe contraception without informing parents, right? It's a judgement the GP has to make based upon the level of understanding of the child. I also don't know about the people you hang about with, but most people I know, dont consider underage girls (no mention of boys there, of course) sufficiently sensible or responsible to make informed decisions about sex and relationships, but we have to deal with the fact that despite that, they often engage in sex anyway.



who exactly determines what is decent or indecent?

Personally, I would run a mile from the Job, but just wondering where or what the line is.

The Courts.
 
I find it disconcerting that an adult of any age can have sex with a 16 yr old, so see her in the flesh naked, etc etc.
They commit no offence whether they be 16 or 60 yrs old, yet if the same people posses an image of her naked they can be arrested and tried as a paedophile.

The would be prosecuted as a sex offender rather than a paedophile, but it is an anomaly that I wasnt aware of until this thread. That's my new thing to have learned today.

Our laws are outdated and an ass, they need updating starting with the age of consent and moving on from there.
If the law gave the age of consent as 14 but with a maximum age gap of 3 yrs between partners until the age of 18 it would make things easier to enforce all round, it would decriminalise teenage sex and could have a clause written in that repealed simple possession of an image for those under 18, distributing would still be an offence.

No thank you. Kids having consensual sex with each other are not prosecuted now. No reason to make changes to that as far as I can see. As for your proposals for the making of indecent images, if a 16 year old takes photos of his 14 year old girlfriend (or vice versa) and that ends up in the possession of a network of adult sex offenders, they wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for possession of the image. Sounds daft to me.

It would then set a clear cut point of 18 for an adult to both sleep with and photograph a younger woman, something that to me seems like common sense whilst also allowing the easier prosecution of those having sex with minors.


I'm not sure why we need allowances for 17 year olds to be sleeping with 14 year olds. Seems an unnecessary change to be making to the law.

We also need the law changing so that the age of responsibility where someone is deemed an adult by the police at the age of 16 in respect to criminal charging etc, equalised with the age of majority (18).

I'm pretty sure that the sentencing (as opposed to charging) for 16 and 17 year olds is different from that of 18 year olds. Are you saying they should be the same?

Oh and remember the same could apply if you lend your camera to someone and unknown to you illegal material is left on it.

One of the tests the Police and the CPS need to prove is that it was you that took or accessed the images. If they cant show that it was you, then you are OK (rumourmills excepted). Im pretty sure the CPS techy clarified that in one of his earlier posts.
 
Do people really believe this? For a start there are more reasons than just providing contraception as to why the pill is prescribed to girls. Secondly, kids have been having sex under age since forever. Prescribing the pill doesnt encourage it, it is an attempt to prevent teenage pregnancies. it certainly isnt telling them that it is OK to break the law, and weilding the law as an attempt to prevent underage consenting sex between peers has proven impopssible.

Yes, I know there are other reasons for prescribing the pill to girls, but they're irrelevant in this context. I also agree with you that under age sex is nothing new - that's why I said times change but human nature doesn't - and it was common for girls to marry at 14 or 15 a few hundred years ago. I didn't say that prescribing the pill encourages under age sex, but it legitimates it and brings the law into disrepute.

Do you mean reduce the age of consent? Sounds like a plan.

Yes. That's the de facto situation anyway - as you said - so why not recognise it and act accordingly.

Legal? Yes. Sensible? No. Mainly because the legalities are a little vague and despite the fact that unless he was actually taking indecent photos, he would be doing nothing wrong, but the consequences of any mud being cast would and could be disastrous.

I agree, absolutely. This situation is unacceptable, because the law is vague. This is repugnant and contravenes a basic principle of legal interpretation, that the law should be drafted in a sufficiently clear manner to enable people to know what they can, and cannot, do. Admittedly, this is becoming more difficult as the law becomes more complex, but that is no excuse in this case. Sloppy drafting may suit the police and the CPS, but it doesn't serve the public interest.

You know it isnt a given that GPs have to prescribe contraception without informing parents, right? It's a judgement the GP has to make based upon the level of understanding of the child. I also don't know about the people you hang about with, but most people I know, dont consider underage girls (no mention of boys there, of course) sufficiently sensible or responsible to make informed decisions about sex and relationships, but we have to deal with the fact that despite that, they often engage in sex anyway.

Yes, I do know that GPs aren't compelled to prescribe contraceptives without informing parents, but the whole idea of offering under age girls contraception is based on the confidentiality of their relationship with the doctor, that they don't need parental consent, and that the doctor won't, as a rule, inform them. I'm quite sure that some - possibly quite a lot- of under age girls (and probably boys too) are quite capable of making responsible and informed decisions but a lot more are going to have sex anyway, as you said, so change the law and clear up the anomalies and vagueness.
 
No thank you. Kids having consensual sex with each other are not prosecuted now. No reason to make changes to that as far as I can see. As for your proposals for the making of indecent images, if a 16 year old takes photos of his 14 year old girlfriend (or vice versa) and that ends up in the possession of a network of adult sex offenders, they wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for possession of the image. Sounds daft to me.
I'm not sure why we need allowances for 17 year olds to be sleeping with 14 year olds. Seems an unnecessary change to be making to the law.

I'd be much happier my 14 yr old sleeping with a 17 yr old than I would my 16 yr old sleeping with a 40 yr old.
As you said like it or not teens will have sex, the onus needs to be on protection, prevention when teen hormones are involved is nigh on impossible outside the taliban!
The idea of the proposal is to increase protection and as it stands already there is leeway unless the girls 13 or under or the guy is a lot older/possible abduction.
Reducing the age has had positive effects in other countries who have much lower teen pregnancy rates, it also with the firm 3 yr rule does away with the "discretion" that seems to be commonly used and means cases of underage sex would be much easier to prosecute.
Of course the protection element means that your child will be protected until they reach full adulthood, rather than left to fend for themselves at 16, a lot of girls go the older man route and I've had to sit back and watch all 3 of my nieces go through terrible times that could have been prevented.

I'm pretty sure that the sentencing (as opposed to charging) for 16 and 17 year olds is different from that of 18 year olds. Are you saying they should be the same?

Sentencing may reflect, the sad fact is from the moment they hit a police station anyone 16-18 is treated as an adult, and legal firms can sue the person as well even though they most likely do not have the means to defend or pay.


One of the tests the Police and the CPS need to prove is that it was you that took or accessed the images. If they cant show that it was you, then you are OK (rumourmills excepted). Im pretty sure the CPS techy clarified that in one of his earlier posts.

In theory, sadly in practise it's usually more so down to the defendant to prove their innocence than the prosecution prove guilt, guilt is assumed/presumed once evidence is found present on the item.
Of course as said this can sometimes be cleared up later, but as I also said, the mere accusation is enough for both the media and the public, the damage is irreversible.
There have been quite a lot of cases of this over the years including people cleared of any involvement still being spat at and abused, to those that have literally been driven to suicide.

I appreciate we are going somewhat off topic here, but there is info in here now that should make every tog who reads it that much more aware of just what a minefield they could walk into.
 
The would be prosecuted as a sex offender rather than a paedophile, but it is an anomaly that I wasnt aware of until this thread. That's my new thing to have learned today.



No thank you. Kids having consensual sex with each other are not prosecuted now. No reason to make changes to that as far as I can see. As for your proposals for the making of indecent images, if a 16 year old takes photos of his 14 year old girlfriend (or vice versa) and that ends up in the possession of a network of adult sex offenders, they wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for possession of the image. Sounds daft to me.




I'm not sure why we need allowances for 17 year olds to be sleeping with 14 year olds. Seems an unnecessary change to be making to the law.



I'm pretty sure that the sentencing (as opposed to charging) for 16 and 17 year olds is different from that of 18 year olds. Are you saying they should be the same?



One of the tests the Police and the CPS need to prove is that it was you that took or accessed the images. If they cant show that it was you, then you are OK (rumourmills excepted). Im pretty sure the CPS techy clarified that in one of his earlier posts.



not sure if that was aimed at me, if it was - just to clarify i'm not a CPS staffer... I work independently via a private company, we do a great deal of defence work, so basically try to prove the defendants innocence...

To be honestly a large number of times we see no real tests applied by the police, at times the can mess up cases majorly, just because they haven't done the ground work. As some one else has mentioned it is upto the defendant to prove their innocence, alot of the time the cases the CPS take to court are guilty and the defendants are playing the system, but there are some that are innocent and have been falsely accused... sad but true... :(
 
Bottom line is it's illegal. I've done some shots of my girlfriend and she's only 17 but none are nude, topless or in her underwear.
Until the model is 18 it's illegal in the UK and I think it's 21 in the US.
 
Actually I think he also needs a model release signed by him, the legal parent/guardian and the model. I'm not sure if you need that for everyone under 18 or just if he is thinking of selling the photos for whatever purpose.
Make sure he looks it up though because whether they are lingerie or fully clothed, he could get in serious trouble.
 
Actually I think he also needs a model release signed by him, the legal parent/guardian and the model. I'm not sure if you need that for everyone under 18 or just if he is thinking of selling the photos for whatever purpose.
Make sure he looks it up though because whether they are lingerie or fully clothed, he could get in serious trouble.

if you take what is deemed to be an illegal photo under the SOA having a model release is not going to do you any good at all, especially considering they have no legal status in the UK and you don't need one at all :shake:
 
if you take what is deemed to be an illegal photo under the SOA having a model release is not going to do you any good at all, especially considering they have no legal status in the UK and you don't need one at all :shake:

Thats not what I mean't.
I think he needs a release because the girl is under 18 and needs her parents signature.
Obviously reguardless of having a release, if you take a photo of a half naked girl your going to get in trouble if anyone finds out.

My advice would be to get to talk to the parent first and then ask both parent and model to sign the release. If she takes her top off ask her to leave and put your camera away.
Oh yeah, its illegal to have your camera out while a minor is showing "too much skin" even if its not turned on or taking pictures.
 
Thats not what I mean't.
I think he needs a release because the girl is under 18 and needs her parents signature.
Obviously reguardless of having a release, if you take a photo of a half naked girl your going to get in trouble if anyone finds out.

My advice would be to get to talk to the parent first and then ask both parent and model to sign the release. If she takes her top off ask her to leave and put your camera away.
Oh yeah, its illegal to have your camera out while a minor is showing "too much skin" even if its not turned on or taking pictures.


nope he doesn't need a release because shes under 18. They have no standing in UK law
 
Depends on the context -

if the shots were being commissioned and used by M&S as a catalogue pic for pants and teen bras - that's one thing, and it is very controlled, and the motive and usage is fair. The issue here is...

- the girl "wants to be a model" but instead of learning "how to be a model" just wants to get her bits out
- the parent chaperone clearly thinks its OK - which IMHO is even worse
- there is no purpose for the shots other than to project the girl into further seedy work

If they think they "just cant wait" then they are barking up the wrong tree anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top