MM wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:38 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> The kp law applies to everyone equally.
>
> It most certainly does not!
>
> Take the Klara and Edda picture, shown briefly at the Baltic Gallery,
> a picture owned by Sir Elton John and created by an American
> photographer, Nan Goldin.
>
> The police removed the work on suspicion that it was .ographic.
>
> According to the newspapers, "One Northumbria police spokesman
> explained [on] Monday: 'The circumstances around who may have been
> involved in the production of the image and who may have owned it or
> owns it forms part of the investigation.' "
>
> Now this picture, which was widely published, albeit somewhat
> censored, in several daily newspapers, would be guaranteed to get
> anyone put in jail if they had it on their computer, which would
> presume the downloading of it.
>
> With me so far?
>
> 1. Picture
> 2. On computer
> 3. Jail
> 4. End of story
>
> Now, a few weeks later, probably deliberately so, in order that the
> story be forgotten about by the general public (hence a conspiracy),
> the Crown Prosecution Service stated: "A photograph owned by Elton
> John which was seized by police at a gallery as part of a child
> .ography probe is not an indecent image."
>
> So, to the aforementioned four criteria, you can add a fifth:
>
> 5. Unless you are rich and famous.
>
> Could it be more clear that your original statement is pants?
>
ISTR a few other of the rich and famous having the full force of the law
descend on them.
However, you answered your own question. "It is not an indecent image".
No one, IIUC, has ever been prosecuted on images that the CPS do no
consider to be indecent.
So, all the people out that that appreciate this type of imagery know
one , at least, that they can possess - entirely legally. The other
38,999 images they have might be a bit of a problem for them, though..
--
Sue |