David Foul-er

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

Who decides which scale to apply? Is it the police, the courts or some other authority? 

The problem isn't just what scale they use, it's calling it the wrong thing.  Here's a (much more serious) example from earlier in the year:

The court heard the images allegedly span from Level 1 to Level 5 on the COPINE scale – the system which categorises the severity of images of child sex abuse.

The reference to Level 1 to Level 5 makes it fairly clear it's the SAC Scale they are actually referring to and which is more suitable for prosecutions than COPINE which was developed to cover all sorts of images of children, rather than just the ones that should be prosecuted.

The confusion is important because it misleads people into thinking that people are being prosecuted for images that most people would have of their families etc.  The prosecuting authorities must take the main blame for this as they're the ones using the COPINE description, though the media should really be pulling them up on it.

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The problem isn't just what scale they use, it's calling it the wrong thing.  Here's a (much more serious) example from earlier in the year:

The court heard the images allegedly span from Level 1 to Level 5 on the COPINE scale – the system which categorises the severity of images of child sex abuse.

The reference to Level 1 to Level 5 makes it fairly clear it's the SAC Scale they are actually referring to and which is more suitable for prosecutions than COPINE which was developed to cover all sorts of images of children, rather than just the ones that should be prosecuted.

The confusion is important because it misleads people into thinking that people are being prosecuted for images that most people would have of their families etc.  The prosecuting authorities must take the main blame for this as they're the ones using the COPINE description, though the media should really be pulling them up on it.

Is it clear it is not the Copine scale that is used  just because levels 1 to 5 are quoted, or is it that the images only fell within the first 5 levels? 

[La Colombe]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except it probably isn't the COPINE scale.  We have this every time one of theses cases turns up: if it's the 1-5 ranked scale that usually seems to be used in the Manx courts, the numbers mean different things (SAP Scale).  All explained in this Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

Though, as also explained in the above, even that SAP Scale has been superseded for nearly a decade in the English courts.  It's just amateurishness on the part of the Police and media, getting something wrong and just repeating it because they are too lazy or arrogant to get it right.

Blimey. Which scale they actually mean does seem somehow hugely relevant. 

[The Phantom]

I'm still really curious about this doll though. 

[Gladys]

56 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

Blimey. Which scale they actually mean does seem somehow hugely relevant. 

It's the difference between there being sexual activity depicted or not. 

[La Colombe]

Exactly. 

[Gladys]

Many years ago, probably in the 90s, there was some news story about a photo development service (may have been Boots) reporting some pics of children in the bath.  Caused quite a bit of consternation at the time, who doesn't take pics of their kids in the bath messing around?  

I can't remember the detail, but it is possible they were somewhat less than innocent and sensibilities were preserved by not going into detail. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Is it clear it is not the Copine scale that is used  just because levels 1 to 5 are quoted, or is it that the images only fell within the first 5 levels? 

But if you look at what Levels 1 and 2 are on COPINE, they're completely innocuous in most cases:

1	Indicative	Non-erotic and non-sexualized pictures showing children wearing either underwear or swimsuits from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organization of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
2	Nudist	Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.

Bath time pictures of small children would be 2 for example.  They might be "Indicative" in some case if the possessor had no link with the subjects or if they were associated with more serious material.  But of themselves they wouldn't be criminal and if it was the COPINE Scale that is being used here, that is all Fowler was accused of.

[La Colombe]

I think it was Julia Somerville.

[thommo2010]

14 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Many years ago, probably in the 90s, there was some news story about a photo development service (may have been Boots) reporting some pics of children in the bath.  Caused quite a bit of consternation at the time, who doesn't take pics of their kids in the bath messing around?  

I can't remember the detail, but it is possible they were somewhat less than innocent and sensibilities were preserved by not going into detail. 

The defence of kids in the bath is kind of blown out of the water when you don't actually have kids. 

[quilp]

2 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

I think it was Julia Somerville.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html

[La Colombe]

Yeah, that was it. 

[La Colombe]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But if you look at what Levels 1 and 2 are on COPINE, they're completely innocuous in most cases:

1	Indicative	Non-erotic and non-sexualized pictures showing children wearing either underwear or swimsuits from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organization of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
2	Nudist	Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.

 

That's what my comment was based on. 

[Gladys]

23 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But if you look at what Levels 1 and 2 are on COPINE, they're completely innocuous in most cases:

1	Indicative	Non-erotic and non-sexualized pictures showing children wearing either underwear or swimsuits from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organization of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
2	Nudist	Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.

Bath time pictures of small children would be 2 for example.  They might be "Indicative" in some case if the possessor had no link with the subjects or if they were associated with more serious material.  But of themselves they wouldn't be criminal and if it was the COPINE Scale that is being used here, that is all Fowler was accused of.

That was the point.  JW says it is the Copine scale, so possibly innocuous in themselves unless there is other stuff to call them into question. 

However, he has plead guilty, so end of discussion on this specific case.

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That was the point.  JW says it is the Copine scale, so possibly innocuous in themselves unless there is other stuff to call them into question. 

However, he has plead guilty, so end of discussion on this specific case.

John actually said the prosecutor and courts seem to want to hear the words "COPINE Scale". but it's quite clear that what is being used is the SAP Scale.  I've checked a number of reports over recent years and nothing is quoted as higher than Level 5, which is highly unlikely if it is the real COPINE Scale.  So they're just calling it by the wrong name for no good reason.