Consultation can be found here, respond to it too!

Why act?

In the absence of research into the effects of these images on offenders and the general public, do you think the proposal to make it illegal to possess the material described in this consultation is nevertheless justified? Please feel free to explain the reasons behind your decision here.

I don't feel it is nevertheless justified, I fail to see how anyone can legislate for something that they have no idea as to the effects, relevance or occurrence of. If the department had actual evidence that the materials the report talks about causes an increase over the base level of physical sexual child abuse then one may have an argument as to why to legislate, but as it stands it's all hypothetical and I don't think the public of this country should sit comfortably with people coming up with hypotheticals and legislating against them.

Options

Which of the options do you prefer?

As it stands I prefer the reports option of "Do nothing", regardless of how much this consultation has been worded to make that option sound like an evil unto itself.

Why do you think this option is the best?

Option 1 simply infringes too easily and readily on items that can be considered art and/or in to areas where it is no longer about tangible evidence but of interpretation in the artistic and creative work of another. Option 2 goes even further in to this illiberal way of legislation by being so vague that one has to worry just how many different "digital" manifestations will be illegal. Will forums for the support of child abuse victims be construed as too dangerous and shut down? Will computer game avatars be forced to be "appropriately dressed" if the user is under 16? It's a vague farce to even consider such an option before, as the report readily admits, you have any evidence whatsoever to investigate the need for such an option.

Do you have another suggestion that you would like to submit?

I'd like to suggest that the department focuses more on raising awareness about personal safety as a child, about encouraging kids that are abused by their family and friends to come forward and break the cycle, and to otherwise continue the good work on breaking up paedophile rings and investing in support and preventative services. It is these measures that will have the greatest impact on stopping child abuse around the world, not by creating a storm in a teacup over illustrations, etc.

Defences

Do you think the defences will adequately cover all those instances that need to be excluded from criminalisation, for example: for the visual reconstruction of an offence for risk assessment purposes, legitimate research, etc?

I think the defense the report talks about would be far too far reaching and successful for it to ever actually be useful to defendants. I fail to see how this government would allow people a defense based on arguing the legitimacy of their art in a court of law, given how subjective such a subject can be with a jury. It is only right that people are protected legally from being prosecuted for unsolicited viewing of ANY illegal material, as well as accidental viewing and as a legitimate part of a job. In all I believe the defences outlined are right and just, but I am entirely sceptical as to how likely they are to be outlined well enough for effective use.

Material

Do you think that it is appropriate that a new offence should cover the sort of material described?

I don't feel it is appropriate that any new offence even targets drawings, illustrations and CGI without evidence to show that such things cause a rise in child abuse. More time should be spent tackling the attitudes that make people wish to draw child abuse outside of a purely artistic scope. In the strictest sense, unless you can show that evidence there is no harm coming to children because of its existence, and it is more beneficial to be able to see and tackle the causes of it than to drive it underground where we can only wonder what its effects are.

Do you feel there is any other material that needs to be captured?

No, I feel I have stated quite clearly (and will ensure that this is stressed repeatedly throughout my answers) that evidence needs to be presented first, then this kind of consideration needs to be made. How can one determine what material is dangerous before one knows what effects different material has on child abuse? It is completely illogical to tackle this issue in the manner this department has chosen to.

Content

Do you feel that the thresholds we have suggested are workable and will capture images at the right level of seriousness?

I believe the inclusion of the "pornography" level is actually the worst suggestion regarding content thresholds. It is precisely this threshold that will cause conflict and dispute over artistic license and interpretation. How does one decide that an image is an old looking 13 year old in the style an artist has drawn them rather than a young looking 18 year old? Without amazingly complex and bureaucratic guidelines on such a matter it will be frankly impossible to convey any kind of legal consistency.

Penalties

Do you believe the maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment for possession is appropriate?

I believe that, once again, you cannot decide on a sentence before you know the severity of consequence a crime causes. Is three years imprisonment enough? Well if these images are as bad as photographs then why isn't five years the maximum? If they are worse than photographs why not seven years? Conversely if the effect of having these images is no physical abuse to a child and no evidence of an increased chance of child abuse then why is imprisonment necessary instead of voluntary therapy (for example). Once again I have to stress this consultation is being presented in entirely the wrong order.