> I have seen the photo in question. There
> is no doubt that they’re under 18. More
> like 5 year olds.
This puts the police in an interesting position. Given that they have charged people with the possession of child porn for having much less shocking images (eg. children on the beach) then if they let this one go, they’re rather going against the entire direction of their recent policy. And yet if the go after Sir Elton, they’ll be going after a popular figure, and they risk jury nullification...
Good point. Not sure where the line would be drawn. If I had a picture of my topless two year old niece that couldn’t possibly be considered provocative, no one would bat an eye. Had she been in a diaper? Panties? Less? I wouldn’t go there, but yeah, how young is “acceptable” for naked baby photos?? Five or six years old is obviously getting toward pedo territory, but why? It’s a tough call, but then again it’s likely that if they’re pedophiles they’ll have far more incriminating photos than the “borderline” ones. As a previous freeper posted, let’s see what turns up on his hard drive...