Ahem..

"To date it has not been an offence to have this kind of material."

"Indecent pseudo-photographs of children" have been illegal since the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. If an image has the appearance of a photograph but is not a photograph, it is a pseudo-photograph.

"Until today, we have never had computer graphic or cartoon- type images deemed as pseudo-photographs and put before the court. To date it has not been an offence to have this kind of material."

In 2000, a man was convicted of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child for possessing a computer-generated image of a naked child.

"He said new legislation was being considered aimed at dealing with pseudo-photographs."

New legislation was proposed to criminalise images which do not look like photographs. An announcement in favour of the proposal was made in order to distract from the failure of a new Prime Minister and his cabinet.

"Though no actual child has been abused, it helps to feed the demand."

For what? Pseudo-photographs? I feel contempt for those who believe that viewing images without paying or requesting encourages the production of any material, however the suggestion that viewing psuedo-photographs encourages the production of photographs is utterly ridiculous. If viewing an image did encourage the production of more images, it would encourage the production of CGI, not photographs.

I personally believe that this judge is intentionally deceiving the public in order to fulfill a political agenda.