Teacher found hanged today was found to have porno pics of children on his pc. Obviously and rightly he'd have been prosecuted if he was alive. Im going to play devils advocate now .

Agreed a shocking crime when you think of the 'victims'. Set me thinking though, what would the legal position be if a person was found with high quality computer generated pictures of normally banned porno subjects?

I watched a documentary about mammoths last night and you'd swear they were alive and real , but of course they wern't, but it shows we do have the technology to offer pictures moving or otherwise where you cant tell the difference.

If there was no primary 'victim' and people were downloading and watching computer generated porn alone in their own homes. Would it and should it still be a punishable crime ?

Chainsawing someone to death is a true life crime, but you could watch a horror movie where a computer could generate a realistic person who suffers such a fate, and I dont think that would be illegal.

presume as there is no victim then it wouldn't be a crime. My lad did his degree in film studies and there is plenty of cartoon porn emanating from Japan.
I was listening to the report on the radio and it said the police had informed 4 parents. Not sure I would want to know if someone had been getting kicks from photographing my kids. If he had actually been touching them then it would be a different story.

It is classed as illegal in this country, although I can't recall the precise piece of legislation. As I recall from an article I read ages ago it is pretty much treated in the same category as the real thing, despite not involving any actual sentient beings. I agree though Venice that as there is no victim, it seems contrary to logic that it should be an offence.

there most certainly is a victim. countless victims

Note I did specify 'primary' victim Rover .. I get your point and actually I agree, but its the legalities of it that bamboozle me .

so what about all the numerous video games where you can go round killing people?? isnt that the same! yet that isnt illegal. or am i just not getting the point here

I think the point here is if you were to be watching porn involving children real or computer generated then that would tell me you had an un healthy interest in children, and possibly go on to offend, so my thoughts would be yes it should be illegal .

Its not often that people do what we see in video games and go round killing people but sadly it does happen. I am sure the victims of this and those connected are equally disgusted by this as i would be about the question venice has been brave enough to ask. Its a subject that is raw on every thinkable level.

As someone once said 'It doesn't create, e.g psychopaths but it does give them ideas'

Rocks and Dilly -- what would you reply if I posted the following

"If I found you watching 'Chainsaw Massacre'then this would tell me you had an unhealthy interest in murdering people , so I think films depicting killing , should be illegal"

(no Simon you havent missed the point )

Obviously the powers that be approve of the type of film you mention Venice, no one could ever approve of films depicting sexual abuse of children. People that do watch such stuff do so for self gratification and are a great danger to all children.

Their are numerous films about child abuse This is not comparable to what the first post was asking

There are numerous films about child abuse This is not comparable to what the first post was asking

(Devils advocate remember) Two computer generated films. Isnt it just as sick wanting to watch a graphic film of a person being sadistically tortured, eyes gouged out, fingers cut off, flayed, disemboweled to death as it would be to want to watch a film of a youngster being molested sexually but not even necessarily painfully or causing damage or death ? Is one worse than the other when neither is real ? Both scenarios are illegal in real life.Why only one in computer generated terms? Can you really justify the former being legal ,in the light of the latter being illegal?


Hat off. Id have all such scenes banned whether trick photography or generated by computer . Doesnt matter that its not real, it LOOKS real, so I reckon it damages our collective morality and individual psyche.

News today on a similar trait.

Jurors heard Miles, 17, who admitted murder, had a fixation with the lead character in the US series Dexter.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29459516

Did anyone watch the peodophile hunter on TV a few nights ago? Wasn't easy viewing and wether their was an actual victim or not the men involved obviously wanted to take advantage of children, is this so very different , to your statement that there wasn't a victim in computer generated child abuse?

I watched a bit of the program, but I thought maybe it made men become pedo`s. Type in school girl and a few rude words and you get some tasty porn :-) all girls pretending to be schoolies. Does that make me a pedo?. Maybe some of the men would not of done it if not so easily lead. As I said, I only watched a bit and missed all the texts as I was to far away from the TV to be able to see them.

It is illegal in this country to 'Make images of children in a pornographic way' or depict people 'Acting' as children acting in a pornographic way... This includes drawings, cartoons, 'rendered' images etc. It is also illegal to depict an adult dressed as a child committing sexual acts etc. I’m not sure of the actual wording but it has nothing to do with victims and so ‘victimless crime’ would be no defence. It should be noted, that if the police take away your computer or phone and find one of the ‘Joke’ pictures of Bart Simpson or the like that seem to do the rounds these days, you WOULD be prosecuted for having pictures depicting child pornography, you would be taken to court and almost definitely found guilty. This would then involve you being placed on the Sex Offenders Register and in many cases may even involve you losing your job ... A sobering thought next time a mate sends you a ‘joke’ through e-mail.

No it was shown the girl decoys did repeatedly tell the men they were underage , and the men did send obscene messages to them and turn up with booze and cigs for them. I m sure that would not have made u a pedo

And thanks for the clarification, am glad it is illegal

So the "girls" offered their services for booze and fags?. I meant if I search for schoolgirls on the net in naughty videos, does that make me a pedo?. I`ve seen some where the girl is supposed to be still a schoolie and is really older than my mum (80) lol.

No I think the men wanted to get the girls drunk and it was defined by british law as grooming. Watch the whole show, I personally don't want to know what porn you search for. As long as it's legal then it's no one else's business.

But if you look for school girl porn? Is that not wrong? If there was not a demand ...

There must be something into school girl, even looking in Ebay you get sexy school girl uniforms. Maybe somewhere we are being made to think this is normal. Ebay Pic.

Yes I agree, but it doesn't make it right

If you go.back and look at old ST Trinians films it shows the girls enticing men , but surely we moved on from the 1940's film when flash Harry was running school girls

Good old George Cole :-) Maybe it did start from them days, I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

PLEASE BE AWARE the statement the law makes is 'Makeing an image' when you brouse and a picture is shown on your browser this is classed as 'Making an image'. The law is plain on this so the use of cartoons or older people to depict this kind of thing is no defence and just because it's an e-bay listing will not protect you from prosicution. Just a word of caution to inocent surfers.

So ebay is breaking the law.

Look Zipper I'm not arguing with anybody about what breaks the law or what is moral or immoral , all I am trying to point out to everyone is that what you or anyone else may see as a bit of harmless nosing about on the net or a casual joke (i.e cartoon pictures of Bart Simpson acting in a sexual manner, remembering that Bart is a minor) leave you, the person opening the file on your computer (i.e. making an image) liable to prosecution and this (INCLUDING the picture you posted that you forwarded from E-Bay if it showed an older woman dressed as a minor acting in a sexual manner) WOULD be seen in the eyes of the law as illegal. As I said before I don’t know the exact wording BUT dressing a 40 year old woman up to look like a school girl then posing that 40 year old woman in a sexual pose is classed as ‘Depicting a child in a sexual manner’ and would be classed as an offence that would put the offender on the sexual register. Like it or lump THAT’S the law and I’m just trying to make people aware of this, as many people are NOT aware that they often break the law even when recieving a joke e-mail off a mate.

So this item for sale is illegal because it shows an older woman pretending to be a schoolgirl?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hot-Sexy-...-Suspenders-Clubwear-D4121-/171480591925

Which schools have you seen that have a uniform like that!!!!!!!!!!
Point taken though.Thats why the whole thing is such a difficult issue to control isnt it.

"Pornography is the portrayal of a sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." (not my quote by the way just one legal definition). For a picture to be considered porn, the intent has to be sexual. A picture of an adult can be considered porn if they are positioned in a sexually suggestive way (the Judge would decide) and if that adult is dressed as a child or depicts a child then it becomes ‘Child pornography’ It's somewhat technical and I can only relay it in layman’s terms but that’s how the law stands. But this helps a little:
“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

I’ll leave all of you to make your own minds up on this one as I’m running out of ways to say the same thing and I’m sure most of you have lost interest by now and dropped off to sleep!