Seems The Police Want To Go Really Softly On Child Crime

[youngmafbog]

Anyone agree with this Copper?

For the record I dont, viewing images means you are creating a market for child abuse so just as guilty of it in my book.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4266056/Paedophiles-shouldn-t-face-charges-child-porn.html

[-Talbot-]

but it's difficult if people just express indignation rather than offering suggestions.


Isn't that the norm?

[Gromit]

AH,
// Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness. //

That is No.1 on the COPINE scale and what Bailey is saying the police should not bother to automatically prosecute. The Mail picture above is certainly one which is currently prosecutable, but most people would agree is not abuse or pirnographic.

[-Talbot-]

Did anyone manage to open Gromits first link?

I got this


ÿØÿà JFIF



ÿá `Exif II*   1
  & i‡
. Google    0220 
  
â ÿÛ „ 













































ÿÀ â 
" 

ÿÄ  



ÿÄ l



 #!"312ACQS $BRacs4bqrƒ‘“5DTUu’¡¢£±³´ÑÓÔ%dt‚”•²ÁÂÃð&6Òá„ãñe¤Äó'7EV…†µâòÿÄ 





ÿÄ P 



!"12AQBRa‘±Sq¡¢ÁÑÓ#br’£²Òáð35Tâ4Ccs‚“ñ$Dã6U³%ÿÚ 
 ? ê]Wþ—*²0ÇÁ¿ldµ!-·@FŸd3³õ9dÅ3›×‚"+FÁQUUûÒ|rÃeØë
,PçYâzÛË6HÑ- £3eÊEF/Rª¦=I…& uÍïÁ1óxê!ÜwH˜;DÙn¶ÒQT¨5öŽD^´êJ¡]Û5÷iöíÚ
ìÕÒ
f»4™o8ú¨à™É¦%"¢pÁ×&)Ս÷·\Å}ÊçÄÉÏ[¡¶3J¼)ñ.%LHdø¯Ç«®—P:•C¤þêÝðѶQ ä 5¢t˜sÛ?d“0_vkÌTFÆtíhÞW‰=_ÞÇÕLýí½þïu²[]"®4³ˆé$1œð•Íré „vT*â/"
\:ð5òoC¦œ{=â pȐo- !ÞšVð«ÄxÑãDÔ5^õ)ÖÃ\UÜÑ' Ñu|l!F¢Ä¨¸åEñxèÎù6^ï§Ù.6ëÜÙŒŸ1nPîVÊÇOPŒü”\_åbà—K­hÔ£g¡›ò×1dìt‹þñ¯Ö‚]§Æ·2(ŠPC”Qj4@…¦&¹q@‹Tˆbé§3õ¢¤SÑëws¯¶kêMÚšg8–Û‚)Ob)šÂ‘^e^a…É)æM,z¨ÔÈg ×ú돗ž—·qîê0ÜdËœ‹c§5q”Øq„%F°¾=Bc¦¥ÇWú\èÿ ´3­›IjKH¶Œ–Ùˆ8ב_c¥*ö¥
æF"=u‘W´ž,UF uŸ=@]*zN·e!†q –P
-#•à#GÃ+›ˆÜüí]F/Z'‰>zQØ-À>
þá{[œ“6ä!‰ ~ "s…º«Š5‚u'xZ÷¥žè›}ÙÙöü¨¤|g>:á› ù€F}ÒÃ@ûK¾˜Ñ섾¹ØÄd¸"5Ý·
YœCúÓ*èãë¨?gºt’U¢à;;q‘bÄ3ѯr£UpDÓ­W
¢{˃'k6öFÍɸˉj´@aô!Â$§¸A.£œÌPŽU’ÌUQ{#ê¤]ûôt‘c/1eí)."¶Éâádv´tk´–÷)EÇ@˜#LXRêA7[¼Ýmñ®Q‘é`Zp´ŒÊ]'*£3±1Fx¼Ê©óÓË=r/vKwgÛ&ÊYwÕ„ÕyÈçŠÜÒ0êD†Ç&Úì0Í׊Ö;íÝ4ݏ³[öªÐÏ“=MŒ³¸‘%¤±)œ=‘UÙÁQøæù¨Ô¯g¡R×)wg—´Û|ëcn“­ð§Y¢L(æz.šÄµ¬j®mz»8à¾*|ß ]‰Ûk>¥ÂQ,×;r[ŽI²Œñ¶Da TÏÎM!¹îcý®©hÔ‘Ô5Ò[QöbÔK¬±¬a„*ÍB–C•XÖ‘øé¢5«ÕæñUl÷>îroW;ÖÔÊ1øy]
ÜÎ Â>ÓÜÐ÷}–èµ âNwV*´ƒîÂìIdrS `â G6+Øu3‘ïùež2a‹WîQ¨Ï£¦ø$^à,ÙV‰ÄsÓ@2^×)ÄAŒƒ8Õ­jéIêÃçZ—³×.·Å]¦.Íl•²ë4#Ú²îgçKc±˜‘@VàPGf|ÃxÕzükJ“ìòvkìÐ Ý&Ͷß܁“q”®i¬™ªüÂ!IªŽDENj.(´jM(W#º+nj^ÔÞom—¹-®êçŒ ’lRÈ2b÷¸¸5¢}b`©×Z"EÈÔjb¨Öá×@i·}ë~¯þ¥>i¶©ÌoÕÐU‡cœæ#š¯fMAµÝ±jwZ‚ôZõ¬“š×µŠö´Ï¦Çm1tûÝ1úZ¨›z[¢mò%sA·ñí6~„Êï²

[hc4361]

Andy, if you read the COPINE Scale you will see that that photo of the young girl in a bikini does come under Level 1 and Level 2 of child pornography. If a photo of the same girl in the same bikini was covertly taken whilst she was playing on a beach, it would come under Level 3.

It is the context. I could save that image to my computer with the sole intention of asking my daughter if her daughter would like one similar for her holiday. That is totally innocent and not an offence.

If it were one of hundreds or thousands of similar images on my computer that could be cause for concern.

[-Talbot-]

You can delete that, andy.

[Gromit]

hc4361 gets it.

[hc4361]

In Levels 1, 2 and 3 there is nobody further up the chain of distribution to prosecute. The person found with thousands of these images has collected them from legitimate sources such as clothing catalogues, newspapers, non-pornographic magazines, facebook or taken the photos himself (or herself) in public places such as the beach or park.

The children in the photos have not been abused in any way and neither the children nor their parents know that the photos are being viewed salaciously.

These are the sort of images Chief Constable Bailey wants decriminalised.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit and hc4361 - I am happy to stand corrected on my previous impressions.

Obviously I was commenting from a position without actual knowledge, which does not in itself bar me from posting a view - as I am constantly pointing out on here (!) but I am always willing to admit when I am in error, as here.

[hc4361]

Sadly the media is very fond of knee jerk reaction headlines but less keen to educate with the facts to enable readers to form educated and reasoned opinions.

This is more so the case these days - the more clicks a headline generates the happier the advertisers are.

[Islay]

There is a huge difference between indicative material and pornography. At the moment charges can be bought against certain indicative material, this copper is saying that that is not right. Having seen a lot of the indicative stuff that is out there I tend to agree with him.

[hc4361]

No, Murdo, it is not an illegal image on its own. If somebody has thousands of similar images on his pc and he (or she) uses them for sexual stimulation then they are classed as Level 1 images on the COPINE scale.

[Gromit]

Murdo
// Is the image referenced in the link posted actually illegal, then? Is everyone who clicked that link now guilty of possessing child pornography, as it will be in everybody's browser cache. //

That is the point. It is a prosecutable image and anyone who clicked on the link has it in their cache. The Police Officer is saying that alone should not mean that an automatic prosecution takes place.

And I doubt he is saying anything new or even controversial. I assume the police already assess if images are there for genuine purposes rather that nefarious ones.

The story is deliberately misleading, and the omission of a definition of what 'low-level images' actually means, leads to the copper being totally misrepresented.

[cassa333]

To be able to view child porn of any severity, a child had to have been abused.

But is it OK to let children be abused so that others can get their kicks from looking at the results? If the answer is no then the viewer of porn is guilty as is the perpetrator.

[hc4361]

You haven't read the thread, have you, cassa?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Do you like it?
Do you do it?
The second is a crime and the first is not.The legal system (thus farn but it's changing) punishes actions not thoughts.
On the other hand the legal system (thus far, but ineffectively) punishes complicity in crimes.