egafd.com

Does the fact that no jury has ever been asked, tell you something?

I can see problems with that line.

Yep, people are scared of testing the law, and who can blame them?

'The Act does not define the term 'indecent'[1].'

So level 1 would get you 'Community sentence' or Fine or conditional discharge.

'Images which are below the threshold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.'

Fear is a debilitating emotion Joe.

Don't take pics of her in lingerie but fully clothed then there is no problem, unless its for a catalogue or a main stream advertising why take pics of her in lingerie ?
Its a grey area that is a forbidden zone among the industry Pro's & not worth the risk...

You can add the likes of a topless Kate Moss in fashion editorials under 17, Keira Knightley topless in The Hole at age 16 (was probably 15 during filming), and to make it more relevent Kelly Brook doing a lingerie shoot for Loaded when she was 17 with a memorable spread leg and visble bush through her panties. I don't recall any arrests, court cases or convictions despite two of them being questionably sexual in context (which is everything).

If in doubt take the images in black and white, then claim it's 'art'! tongueincheek

"The Sexual Offences Act 2003 further amended the 1978 Act so as to increase the age of a child from 16 to 18."

Keira Knightley. Born 1985, would have been 16 to 18 in 2001-2003.

Kelly Brook. Born 1979, would have been 17 in 1996.

Kate Moss. Born 1974. Would have been 16 to 18 in 1990-1992.