On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:20:09 +0000, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 13:20:06 on Mon, 2 
>Nov 2009, The Todal  remarked:

>There's a significant lobby behind the idea that all indecent photos of 
>children are de-facto abusive. (The statutory-rape idea).

Well I realise (though I'm not entirely sure you do) that whether an
image is indecent is entirely up to a jury to decide, though
presumably those who devised the scale of one to five used in the
sentencing guidelines envisaged that all fell within the definition.

The first two are:

1. Erotic posing, with no sexual activity.

2. Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child.

Neither of these necessarily depict sexual abuse, though they would
usually be regarded as indecent, and, indeed, people have been
prosecuted for such images.

So it's simply untrue that all indecent images of children depict
sexual abuse.

-- 
Dissenter

In message , at 20:15:06 on 
Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dissenter  remarked:

>>There's a significant lobby behind the idea that all indecent photos of
>>children are de-facto abusive. (The statutory-rape idea).
>
>Well I realise (though I'm not entirely sure you do) that whether an
>image is indecent is entirely up to a jury to decide, though
>presumably those who devised the scale of one to five used in the
>sentencing guidelines envisaged that all fell within the definition.
>
>The first two are:
>
>1. Erotic posing, with no sexual activity.
>
>2. Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child.
>
>Neither of these necessarily depict sexual abuse, though they would
>usually be regarded as indecent, and, indeed, people have been
>prosecuted for such images.

And generally get convicted. All that's required, as a first pass, is a 
view that a particular image is likely to result in a conviction (much 
like CPS rules).

>So it's simply untrue that all indecent images of children depict
>sexual abuse.

The argument from those people who wish to characterise all such images 
as abuse is: minors cannot legally give consent, and therefore it's a 
non-consensual act, which is by definition abusive. It would certainly 
be helpful if there was another word, to be used in this context, to 
describe non-consensual acts. "Rape" is apparently too emotive for us 
Brits, at least in a press release; although the Americans manage to 
live with the expression "statutory rape".
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:50:06 +0000, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 20:15:06 on 
>Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dissenter  remarked:
>
>>>There's a significant lobby behind the idea that all indecent photos of
>>>children are de-facto abusive. (The statutory-rape idea).
>>
>>Well I realise (though I'm not entirely sure you do) that whether an
>>image is indecent is entirely up to a jury to decide, though
>>presumably those who devised the scale of one to five used in the
>>sentencing guidelines envisaged that all fell within the definition.
>>
>>The first two are:
>>
>>1. Erotic posing, with no sexual activity.
>>
>>2. Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child.
>>
>>Neither of these necessarily depict sexual abuse, though they would
>>usually be regarded as indecent, and, indeed, people have been
>>prosecuted for such images.
>
>And generally get convicted. All that's required, as a first pass, is a 
>view that a particular image is likely to result in a conviction (much 
>like CPS rules).
>
>>So it's simply untrue that all indecent images of children depict
>>sexual abuse.
>
>The argument from those people who wish to characterise all such images 
>as abuse is: minors cannot legally give consent, and therefore it's a 
>non-consensual act, which is by definition abusive. It would certainly 
>be helpful if there was another word, to be used in this context, to 
>describe non-consensual acts. "Rape" is apparently too emotive for us 
>Brits, at least in a press release; although the Americans manage to 
>live with the expression "statutory rape".

It's only certain acts which a minor can't legally give consent to,
specifically sexual ones, such as sexual penetration or fondling.

A minor is perfectly legally allowed to consent to wearing a bikini,
lying on a sofa with one knee raised - which covers most of what is
regarded as "erotic posing". A minor is also allowed to consent to
having no clothes on.

A minor can legally masturbate. Sexual or pseudo-sexual acts between
children under 10 (8 in Scotland) would also be legal as children that
age are too young to be prosecuted.

A minor can legally consent to being photographed.

-- 
Dissenter

In message , at 22:45:30 on 
Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dissenter  remarked:
>It's only certain acts which a minor can't legally give consent to,
>specifically sexual ones, such as sexual penetration or fondling.
>
>A minor is perfectly legally allowed to consent to wearing a bikini,
>lying on a sofa with one knee raised - which covers most of what is
>regarded as "erotic posing". A minor is also allowed to consent to
>having no clothes on.
>
>A minor can legally masturbate. Sexual or pseudo-sexual acts between
>children under 10 (8 in Scotland) would also be legal as children that
>age are too young to be prosecuted.
>
>A minor can legally consent to being photographed.

You probably need to spend some time with the Sexual Offences Act to 
better understand the acts that a minor can and cannot consent to, 
especially when photography is involved.
-- 
Roland Perry