On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:25:06 +0000, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 14:10:07 on Mon, 2 
>Nov 2009, The Todal  remarked:
>>No criminal court will be interested in the opinion of the
>>IWF on whether a particular photograph taken from a particular angle is
>>indecent.
>
>I'm not sure the angle is as important as the presence of adults and the 
>degree of penetration.
>
>>Expert evidence about who made the photograph and whether the
>>person in it is a child or an adult, that might well be useful and relevant
>>but I've yet to be shown proof that the IWF is the place where experts who
>>are properly trained and who are sufficiently impartial to deserve the
>>respect of a court, can be found.
>
>Do they hold themselves out to be the final arbiters? I believe I've 
>said several times they are the "first pass" experts, approved as such 
>by Government, CPS, Police etc.

In my opinion, the real problem is not with who is the arbiter, it is
that the statutory framework itself make no sense. In particular, to
make criminal liability depend on whether someone "appears" to be
under the age of 18 is a nonsense; I have known dozens of girls and
woman between the ages of about 13 and 30 for whom I have no idea
whether that criterion is satisfied or not, and I don't believe that
anybody else has either.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

"Don Aitken"  wrote in message 
news:6v2ue559o6tfj5f1ipmk8g6l8gnsdaklkp@4ax.com...
> In my opinion, the real problem is not with who is the arbiter, it is
> that the statutory framework itself make no sense. In particular, to
> make criminal liability depend on whether someone "appears" to be
> under the age of 18 is a nonsense;

I disagree.
If the law referred to an image of someone under the age of 18 , then the 
age becomes another point that you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt to 
secure a conviction.
Unless you can identify the subject of the photo and when it was taken then 
that would be almost impossible to do in a lot of cases , especially if the 
faces aren't visible.

If the law were worded that way you'd get a hell of a lot of not guilty 
verdicts even though it was pretty obvious that the images were of people 
under age.

I do agree that it's going to be difficult to say exactly how old someone is 
in a photo though , and that's where "beyond reasonable doubt" should come 
in , and if the jury can't be sure that you are looking at a 14 year old 
girl instead of an 18 year old then you'd hope that a not guilty verdict 
would be returned.
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

In message <hcnaun$p4g$1@news.eternal-september.org>, at 19:15:08 on 
Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dr Zoidberg 
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>If the law referred to an image of someone under the age of 18 , then 
>the age becomes another point that you need to prove beyond reasonable 
>doubt to secure a conviction.
>Unless you can identify the subject of the photo and when it was taken 
>then that would be almost impossible to do in a lot of cases , 
>especially if the faces aren't visible.
>
>If the law were worded that way you'd get a hell of a lot of not guilty 
>verdicts even though it was pretty obvious that the images were of 
>people under age.

There was a time (I'm not sure if it still applies) when in the USA you 
couldn't secure a conviction at all unless you produced the child in 
court and proved how old they were when the picture was taken.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry  wrote in
news:CiKwxrzuH07KFAYl@perry.co.uk: 

> In message <hcnaun$p4g$1@news.eternal-september.org>, at 19:15:08
> on Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dr Zoidberg 
><AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:
>>If the law referred to an image of someone under the age of 18 ,
>>then the age becomes another point that you need to prove beyond
>>reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
>>Unless you can identify the subject of the photo and when it was
>>taken then that would be almost impossible to do in a lot of cases
>>, especially if the faces aren't visible.
>>
>>If the law were worded that way you'd get a hell of a lot of not
>>guilty verdicts even though it was pretty obvious that the images
>>were of people under age.
> 
> There was a time (I'm not sure if it still applies) when in the
> USA you couldn't secure a conviction at all unless you produced
> the child in court and proved how old they were when the picture
> was taken. 

At least some states must have changed the rules because I recently 
saw, on the BBC, news of an American being convicted for possessing 
manga cartoons of child abuse.  By the way, now that cartoons and 
drawings of child sexual abuse are illegal in this country are they 
included in the IWF's proscription list?

-- 
Percy Picacity

Don Aitken wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, the real problem is not with who is the arbiter, it is
> that the statutory framework itself make no sense. In particular, to
> make criminal liability depend on whether someone "appears" to be
> under the age of 18 is a nonsense; I have known dozens of girls and
> woman between the ages of about 13 and 30 for whom I have no idea
> whether that criterion is satisfied or not, and I don't believe that
> anybody else has either.

When I was at school there was a 14 year old girl attending the local 
Pitman's ? college who looked all of 18, even in her college uniform. 
     When she put on her Sunday best wow.  I am sure the sixth formers 
who walked out with her and may well have taken her to the pictures 
thought she was at least 18.

That was in 1951 so fairly plain clothes, even the Sunday best, and no 
make up for school girls, even when wearing Sunday best.

Would today's court have accepted that she appeared to be 18 or over?

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message , at 21:55:08 on 
Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>> There was a time (I'm not sure if it still applies) when in the
>> USA you couldn't secure a conviction at all unless you produced
>> the child in court and proved how old they were when the picture
>> was taken.
>
>At least some states must have changed the rules because I recently
>saw, on the BBC, news of an American being convicted for possessing
>manga cartoons of child abuse.

The rules change somewhat when cartoons are involved.

>By the way, now that cartoons and drawings of child sexual abuse are 
>illegal in this country are they included in the IWF's proscription 
>list?

There's been serious discussion (and consultations) regarding it since 
2006, but the Coroners and Justice Bill (where such measures are 
included) is still going through Parliament - the Third Reading is 
tomorrow or the day after.
-- 
Roland Perry