If an adult has sex with a 16 year old and a friend films it is a crime being committed? Is the friend filming it guilty of creating child pornography? Is the adult having sex with the 16 year old also guilty of making child pornography even if they don't hold the camera themselves?
Why on earth would you be interested? If the age of consent is 16, why is child pornography mentioned?
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? I thought the age of consent was 16 but the age for taking pictures or videos is 18. It's the strange situation where you can have sex before you can watch someone else do it.
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? Because I think people have to be adults (18) to appear in films. It's a bit of a grey area with the advances of technology, and I'm not sure if there's one straight answer. From what I gather, if there is a video of an under 18 (over 16 and consenting) the people responsible for making and distributing the video would still be in trouble. I'm not sure what trouble exactly...
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? Here you go: Sexual Offences Act 2003 45Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17. (1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows. . (2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”. . (3)After section 1 insert— . “1AMarriage and other relationships. (1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he— . (a)were married, or . (b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship. . (2)Subsections (5) and (6) also apply where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he— . (a)were married, or . (b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship. . (3)This section applies whether the photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person. . (4)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(a), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph being taken or made, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented. . (5)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(b), the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the showing or distributing was to a person other than the child. . (6)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(c), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue both— . (a)as to whether the child consented to the photograph being in the defendant’s possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, and . (b)as to whether the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to anyone other than the child, . the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved either that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented, or that the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to a person other than the child.” (4)After section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (possession of indecent photograph of child) insert— . “160AMarriage and other relationships. (1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he— . (a)were married, or . (b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship. . (2)This section also applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he— . (a)were married, or . (b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship. . (3)This section applies whether the photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person. . (4)If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph being in the defendant’s possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.”
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? Nice to see Orsenkaht has a copy of the 2003 Sexual Offences act so close to hand......how many other users of this forum are as diligent !!!!
the most worrying post I have ever read on here , supertyke just give yourself in to the police , not withstanding the fact you should have done it years ago
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? Exactly what I was thinking, I would have put thereev hat on for that one, ecky thump!
1. I'm not a goalkeeper. 2. The photos of your wifes tits that we've all seen are so saggy that nobody would ever believe she is under 61 never mind 16.
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? the words ecky thump always reminds me of the knights who say ni. We are now the Knights who say... "Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm.
Re: Why on earth would you be interested? It's bizarre but if two 16 year olds got married and filmed their honeymoon night they would be making child pornography. Some of the page 3 girls in the 80s like Sam Fox were 16 or 17 as well so some old copies of The Sun are now child pornography as well.
