cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Peter Sommer]

Ian Batten wrote:
>
> ... can in no way be described as a photograph of child abuse 
> (although it may fall into the category of potentially indecent) and 
> in general terms looks like the IWF crossing a line from ``blocking 
> material which is highly likely to be illegal'' to ``blocking material 
> which someone might find offensive but is unlikely to result in a 
> successful prosecution''.  Which is not the purpose for which the IWF 
> was set up.
>
The offence in the Protection of Children Act 1978 refers to indecent 
photograps,  not child abuse:

1(1) It is an offence for a person -
 
To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or 
pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent 
photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent 
photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being 
distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to be 
published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that 
the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or 
pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.
 
Note: The term "make" includes downloading images from the Internet and 
storing or printing them out. R v Bowden 
<http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm>(J) 1999.

Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 makes the simple 
possession of indecent photographs of children an offence.   This 
operates on "strict liability" - the offence is made out by the fact of 
possession though and an accused has the onus of proving on the balance 
of probabilities that he has the benefit of one of three rather limited 
defences

That might create a problem for those who have the original album cover.

However before a prosecution can take place two tests have to be applied 
separately by the :  a 50% likelihood of conviction and a consideration 
of public interest (in which they act on powers delegated from the DPP).


The image (which in the public interest, to prevent others committing 
offences and within the scope of s 46 SOA 2003 I have arranged to see) 
appears to fall into category 1 (out of 5) as indicated by the 
Sentencing Advisory Panel
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/advice_child_porn.pdf