Sexually Explicit Photos & The Beeb

[Khandro]

Does anyone care if someone wants to pay large sums of money to a 17 year old young man for them?

Is this simply a battle between the different news channels?

[Stableford]

Ask his mother.

[barry1010]

It's illegal. It's as simple as that.

[barry1010]

I don't blame the BBC. If the accusations are true I blame the man that paid the underage teen.
How would any other employer react if accusations were made against an employee? Would they even know before any charges were brought?

[Khandro]

//It's illegal. It's as simple as that.//

What is illegal?

[Ellipsis]

Perhaps this will help on the legalities ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321

[Lie-in King]

From the BBC -

"The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17 - which is over the age of sexual consent.

But that's not the relevant law when it comes to allegedly indecent images.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share and possess indecent images of people under 18.

The maximum sentence is 10 years.

A person under the age of 18 cannot give their consent to the images being taken."

[Khandro]

I see, the allegation is that the pictures themselves are illegal?
I thought they were pictures of the young man.

[Ellipsis]

So, it would be legal if the presenter was present to see the sexually explicit acts in person, but not legal if the same sexually explicit acts were sent as photos to the presenter.

[barry1010]

Now do you understand, Khandro? Technically the younger man has broken the law, too, but in cases like this is usually treated as the victim of grooming or coercion.

[barry1010]

Ellipsis, had the accused had sex with the 17 year old and perhaps treated him to a few gifts that would have been legal. Unless the accused was in a position of trust such as his teacher, mentor, employer as examples.

[netibiza]

Yes its wrong to view illicit photos of an under 18 year old. And a very vulnerable teen at that!

[237SJ]

Barry - how do you know the victim was male?

[Khandro]

'The age of consent in England and Wales is 16. This is the age when young people of any sex, gender or sexual orientation can legally consent to taking part in sexual activity.'

Of what consenting adults do in private, I don't give a damn, but if the photos are of child porn, that's quite a different matter.

[barry1010]

What do you define as 'child porn'? (A horrible term in my opinion).

16 and 17 years can have consensual sex with whoever they like but two young people of that age can't take indecent photos of each other, nor take photos of themselves and send them to the other.

[Untitled]

the law has some odd consequences here… it would have been potentially legal to have sex with this person assuming no breach of trust and they could consent… but because they were not yet 18 the pictures are illegal

[douglas9401]

It may yet turn out to be a mother casting around for excuses as to why her child is a junkie.

Time will tell.

[Untitled]

does seem a bit erm unfortunate that the pictures would have been legal a few months later!

[barry1010]

Or even a few days later, we don't know.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought it was a battle for more moolah
the beebs legal coverage continues to be AWFUL.
.
Their fear of defamation is too great, Jury trial is over and a judge hears the whole case, The awards are much smaller - Cliff got 400k.

The presenter cannot be named as it is not even a police investigation yet.

now what was the content of the two calls to the fella, last week, when he asked what he had done?

well the victim ( hem hem) was over 16 - way oover age of criminal responsibility and made indecent photos of himself which is a crime. We have heard nothing of that.

Shades of Oscar Wilde - 1890 His silk said 'the stable lad who is alleging this , is also saying he committed and offence under oath' and then predicted it wdnt happen
It did

[Old_Geezer]

Know what you mean Khan. But the problem is that there is no consistent agreement on the age a child becomes an adult. The concept of a period between, known as adolescence, doesn't help here. We are informed by science that one's brain doesn't stabilise until one's twenties, and every individual is different anyway. Time was when one was allowed to vote only from the age of 21. I think considering folk to be in that category at 18 was a reasonable change, if a debatable one. (Of course, lowering it any further is ridiculous, and anyone suggesting it needs to be kept out of any position of influence.) IMO, any lower age (