'Making' indecent photograph of a child

Contrary to what one would suppose, the UK crime of "making" an indecent photograph of a child does not imply having anything to do with how the photo was originally created. The link below includes guidance for UK prosecutors on when to charge "possession" and when to charge "making" (click on the heading "Charging ‘Possession’ or Charging ‘Making’?"). The short answer is that if you can find it on the device, you can prove "making" -- downloading, including even viewing a web page that includes the photo so that it is cached, is "making" the image (it wasn't there on your device before; now it is, so you "made" it there). "Possession" is harder to prove, requiring evidence about where the image was located on the device, how it got there, and whether it was accessible without specialized knowledge. Deleting an image will usually be enough to avoid "possession," but if the image remains stored (which deleted content normally does), it is still enough to prove "making." Since public support for CP laws significantly depends on the age difference taboo and the myth of childhood innocence, prosecutors potentially undermine that support when they charge persons who are (or were at the time of the alleged offence) under 18. Even more so when they then put those persons on sex registries. hugzu ;-p Thesis Antithesis Synthesis Norm Adjacency Sex is good Rape culture Feminism Gender Sex workers Boys decide Grooming Youth liberation Age Transboys/Tomboys No sex police The nanny state Anarchism Identity RSOs/SVPs Click on the table for a larger version and brief explanation (https site) Indecent and Prohibited Images of Children (UK Crown Prosecution Service) [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst]