|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 9, 2023 13:59:13 GMT
Why is this an ‘internal’ enquiry ?? www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66147003The claim is made that someone paid someone else to supply indecent pictures. In law if these were ‘obscene’ it is a matter for the criminal courts Also in law if as alleged the ‘model’ was 17 at the time the first payments were made then this is also a criminal matter as the minimum age to appear in pornography is 18, not 16 So why is this an ‘internal’ BBC matter and why is the buyer not now in a cell awaiting interrogation ? |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jul 9, 2023 14:07:52 GMT
The BBC did as usual try to sit on this story, the initial complaint from the victims mother was lodged in May, the BBC did nothing and the Sun broke the story this week. There well may be criminal proceedings arising, but most probably the Police will not bother about it as it doesn't involve birthday cake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:19:39 GMT
I think its complicated
A person can indulge in sexual activity over and above the Age Of Consent ( 16 ), therefore any person over 16 who indulges in sexual activity, with or without parental consent, does not break the law.
But, can a person over the Age Of Consent, but under 18, send an erotic picture to an adult with mutual consent.
I have to admit that I do not really know the answer to that question, but at a guess I would say they can, provided that the person receiving the picture does not distribute it via any means, including sharing, or by making the image public or available to others.
Also - Were the images "pornographic" or "erotic"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:34:44 GMT
I think I have found the answer, and my assumption (above) was wrong - it seems that johnofgwent is correct
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (and its subsequent amendments) makes it illegal to take, permit to be taken, make, distribute, show, have in one’s possession, publish or cause to be published any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child (defined as someone under the age of 18 years old). The law is defined broadly to allow the criminal justice system to capture a wide variety of acts that represent child pornography. The punishments for child pornography are some of the most severe of this category of offence, with up to ten years’ imprisonment given to the worst offenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 9, 2023 14:59:07 GMT
I’m just flabbergasted that someone who must be reasonably intelligent and worldly could be so stupid .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 15:36:26 GMT
Why is this an ‘internal’ enquiry ?? www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66147003The claim is made that someone paid someone else to supply indecent pictures. In law if these were ‘obscene’ it is a matter for the criminal courts Also in law if as alleged the ‘model’ was 17 at the time the first payments were made then this is also a criminal matter as the minimum age to appear in pornography is 18, not 16 So why is this an ‘internal’ BBC matter and why is the buyer not now in a cell awaiting interrogation ? The mother should now go to the police, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 9, 2023 20:28:30 GMT
I think I have found the answer, and my assumption (above) was wrong - it seems that johnofgwent is correct The Protection of Children Act 1978 (and its subsequent amendments) makes it illegal to take, permit to be taken, make, distribute, show, have in one’s possession, publish or cause to be published any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child (defined as someone under the age of 18 years old). The law is defined broadly to allow the criminal justice system to capture a wide variety of acts that represent child pornography. The punishments for child pornography are some of the most severe of this category of offence, with up to ten years’ imprisonment given to the worst offenders. yeah. I knew this in 92 thanks to a bloke who used the Ingres database to launch his kiddie porn into orbit using the inmarsat data channels to distribute it. When charged under the obscene publications act he tried to say electronic storage wasn’t covered by the said act, The judge said ‘nice try, but you’re wrong, so, how i ask you again, how do you plead’ I agree the issue is very much in the early stages of the investigation but from the information already in the public domain i simply cannot see how this isn’t a police matter for the same reason sex with a 15 year old in the UK is statutory rape …. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 9, 2023 20:30:50 GMT
Why is this an ‘internal’ enquiry ?? www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66147003The claim is made that someone paid someone else to supply indecent pictures. In law if these were ‘obscene’ it is a matter for the criminal courts Also in law if as alleged the ‘model’ was 17 at the time the first payments were made then this is also a criminal matter as the minimum age to appear in pornography is 18, not 16 So why is this an ‘internal’ BBC matter and why is the buyer not now in a cell awaiting interrogation ? The mother should now go to the police, surely? even if she does not, the BBC and / or The Sun have to IF the details as published so far are the truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 21:26:18 GMT
The mother should now go to the police, surely? even if she does not, the BBC and / or The Sun have to IF the details as published so far are the truth. I've just seen the BBC have referred it to the Met Police. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 9, 2023 21:58:40 GMT
The correct outcome.
I’m currently far too drunk. It’s been a week!! I’m turning the phone off and going back to my sixth pint of directors.
‘Nite all
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 10, 2023 6:02:45 GMT
Didn't the Sun, who broke this story, show "Page 3" girls who were younger than 18?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 6:25:14 GMT
Didn't the Sun, who broke this story, show "Page 3" girls who were younger than 18? Indeed they did. And it was part of a "British institution" apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 10, 2023 6:29:00 GMT
Topless photos are not exactly 'porn' are they - otherwise your holiday snaps from Spain and France would be illegal
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 6:45:32 GMT
From Savile onwards, the BBC would appear to have a serious problem with paedophilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 7:01:26 GMT
This isn’t a case of paedophilia. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre pubescent children.
|
|
