egafd.com

Has anyone else heard of this?

>http://www.net-model.com/Forums/ReadThr ... adID=29469<

I can't comment anything about this new law, but I think there are very few on here who would photo anyone under 18 for any type of site (topless or not).

The only way to be safe is to make sure all girls are over 18 and get ID before the shoot starts.

Cheers
Paul L

Another law that will make a fortune for lawyers due to the ambiguity of its wording.

Does anyone else find it strange that they changed the law a few years ago that made it legal for me to shag a 16 year old up the bum, but now they may imprison me for taking a picture of her boobs?

(Before anyone jumps in, I've never done any shoots with under 18's)

From what I can gather from looking on the homeoffice.gov.uk website about the new changes in the law, it states a child is now classed as anyone under 18 where previously is was 16. The offence committed if you took a indecent picture of a 16 or 17 year old model after the new law came in would be this one.

"Causing or encouraging child into commercial sexual exploitation; facilitating the commercial sexual exploitation of a child; and controlling the activities of a child involved in prostitution or pornography, the maximum penalty for all of which will be 14 years imprisonment."

Unfortunatly the law doesn't state what pornography is, sure a 17 year old model can no longer pose for "shaven babes" magazine but would a topless 'page 3' picture of a 16 year old model be classed as pornography?
The Sun, star , sport newspapers all feature topless models more or less on a daily basis but there not classed pornography, heck a 13 year old kid can even delivery them on a paper round before he goes to school. yet you would harldy let him delivery a copy or mayfair or hustler, let alone look at one.
Its another Uk law that wide open to interpretation, what about all the images taken previous to the new law coming into effect. Do we all have to round up and burn old copies of the Sun newspaper with a 16 year old topless Sam Fox just so we can't be accused of possesing 'child porn'?

Does it also mean I cannot ogle on the beach ?

Rock

I assume that this is part of the Sexual Offences Bill which has been recently passing through parliament. Although there is much in the bill that most people would welcome, it does cause difficulties for some groups of people. Activities which have previously been unquestionably lawful are now riddled with ambiguity. Examples are the activities of swingers and naturists. Parts of the legislation even attempt to legislate on where people can and can't have sex. It is now an offence to have sex in public. The problem is that whilst the majority of the population accept that you cannot have it in the street and frighten the horses, the bill is drafted in such away that it MIGHT be an offence to have it anywhere where a third party may see you. Lets hope the courts take a more sensible approach than do politicians. The overwhealming majority of people wish to see strong child protection laws. The problem here is that advantage has been taken of this desire to allow petty moralistic legislation to get onto the statute book. The trouble with the so-called moral majority is that they are neither moral nor a majority.

The law also makes no exception to the normal sexual exploration that comes with adolecence, which means any 14 year old shoving his hand up his 14 year old girlfriends jumper, even with her permission, will technically, and automatically, become a sex offender.

Blindo has said common sense will be used, but we know that the coppers and common sense are ploes apart.

Peter wrote:

> The law also makes no exception to the normal sexual
> exploration that comes with adolecence, which means any 14 year
> old shoving his hand up his 14 year old girlfriends jumper,
> even with her permission, will technically, and automatically,
> become a sex offender.

I don't think it does say that, unless I've missed something. Under this Act, such offences can only be committed by persons over 18.