An 'artistic' photo from elton johns collection was seized from a display at the baltic gallary in Gateshead.
It showed a very young girl in an explicit pose.
After a month, it seems the police are unable to say whether it is illegal or not - if the authorities can't tell, then how is anyone else supposed to?
(FWIW: I think it is clearly objectionable - a child so young cannot have given meaningful consent to have such a photo taken and published globally - and everyone involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law)
2007-10-15 01:59:50 · 17 answers · asked by P P 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
A file will have been sent to the CPS and it will be bouncing from desk to desk until they can find somebody who can make a decision
2007-10-15 04:57:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should know already that nothing is solved when snap judgements are made.
If you want a police force that is thoughtfull and correct then I suggest you shut your rantins and be patient.
Have you thought that there might be a certaian standard and that they may be waiting on an independant advisor to confirm this? Have you thought that if they rush into this they may be suggesting that any picture of a naked child taken by a loving parent could also be pornographic?
2007-10-15 02:10:42 · answer #2 · answered by carswoody 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Art is not pornography. The statue of David shows everything even to the smallest detail is considered a masterpiece.
Pornography is only in the minds of the viewers. If you see the photo and you get horny then its pornography, if you don't then its art and not such a good one at that. This I believe is the reason why its taking the police to decide whether its art or not.
2007-10-15 03:09:05 · answer #3 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I haven't seen this photo - I don't know if you have seen it. You say it is an "explicit pose" but you do not define what you mean by "explicit". Do you have a legal definition of that?
If you see a photo of a naked child and you can only see it as a sexually arrousing image I think that says something about YOU and not necessarily about the photographer.
Do you find this image to be sexually explicit:
http://www.wmofa.com/gallery/Dossi,_Dosso/Madonna_and_Child_1525.jpg
Note: before anyone gets upset and reports me that link is to an image Madonna and Child, painted by Dosso Dosi in 1525.
2007-10-15 02:07:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
This is Northumbria Police you are talking about - they may not have all that much experience in dealing with this sort of thing. This is Gateshead, not London!
Chances are that they would have to bring up experts from other parts of the country to decide if it was pornographic or not.
2007-10-15 05:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's probably not the police that are taking so long. They have probably conferred with prosecuting attorneys or someone like the state attorney general. When a bunch of great legal minds get together it's not unusual for them to take months or longer to come to an agreement on an opinion.
2007-10-15 02:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by Keith 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
THE AUTHORITIES HAVE A PHOTO "ARTISTIC". (ART IS AN AREA OF IS IT ART OR SEDUCTIVENESS?)
ELTON JOHNS COLLECTION (NOW WE HAVE A VERY INFLUENTIAL MAN-KNOW AND AVOWED HOMOSEXUAL? IS HE INTO GUYS OR CHILDREN? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SAY IF WE ARE SAYING ANYTHING?)
POLICE ARE UNABLE TO SAY. (I DO NOT THINK THEY WILL EVER SAY--THEY CONFISCATED THE ART, WROTE IT UP AND ARE WAITING FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION MOST LIKELY)
THAT IS YOUR OPINION AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO IT. (ART IS A VERY TOUCHY AREA. PLAYBOY AND PENTHOUSE WERE AND ARE CONSIDERED ART. BUT IN THE 70'S THEY WERE CONSIDERED THEY SAME AS PORNO AND SOME TODAY CONSIDER IT PORNO?)
THE PROBLEMS ARE:
HOW OLD IS THE CHILD REALLY? (MANY SO CALLED CHILD LIKES ARE REALLY 16 WHICH IS LEGAL IN SOME STATES. 18-19 IS USUALLY THE NORMAL AGE FOR EMANCIPATION IN THE USA. WHAT IF SHE AND PHOTO ARE FROM ANOTHER FOREIGN LAND? INTERNATIONAL LAW NOW APPLIES.)
WAS SHE PAID TO POSE? (MOST PORNO IS DONE FOR CANDY AND GIFTS BY PREDITORS OF SMALL UNKNOWING CHILDREN.--IF SHE WAS PAID AS A PROFESSIONAL $2,000?? $20,000?? THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM)
DID PARENTS GIVE CONSENT TO HAVE HER PHOTO TAKEN? (IF EVERYONE KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND PROFITED TO THE FAMILY'S BENIFIT, THEN CAN IT BE PORNO? A LOT OF FOREIGN PLACE $1.00 A DAY WILL PUT THREE MEALS ON THE TABLE? $2,000 IS A LIFETIME OF EARNINGS?)
DID SHE HERSELF GIVE CONSENT TO HAVE THIS PHOTO TAKEN? (IS SHE OLD OR MATURE ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT SHE WAS DOING?)
IS SHE CAPABLE OF MAKING A SOUND DECISION? (JUDGES DISCRETION AND COURTS IF I GOES THAT FAR)
THESE ARE SOME OF THE RATIONALS I CAN COME UP WITH OFF THE TOP OF MY THOUGHT PROCESSING WITHOUT LOOKING UP LAWS, BUT IT MAY GIVE YOU SOME INSIGHT. TO YOUR QUESTION. WHY SO LONG. REMEMBER THE LAW IS NOT FAST AND QUICK. A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE AND THT DECISION COULD EFFECT FUTURE CASE ABOUT CHILDREN??
2007-10-15 02:35:48 · answer #7 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Would you prefer they leap in without taking advice of counsel and at great cost to the public prosecute a case they cant win?It is not like the TV, in real life cases don't only take a one hour episode to investigate,convict and sentence.
2007-10-15 02:55:32 · answer #8 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That title is just plain funny.
Seriously though, it has to be bounced between the police and the CPS, so if all the prosecutors are busy it wouldn't be suprising. If, on the other hand, all is quiet there must be something wrong.
2007-10-15 03:03:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You picked a case to complain about the slowness of the police. That's really not fair. I could pick a case when they have been very, very quick to take action. They shot an innocent man in the tube very quickly indeed. I suppose you will say they have been very slow in saying sorry and making recompense now!
2007-10-15 02:13:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋