I have just re-read the new child image guide-lines and am very interested in getting an answer to Gerhard's question.

Historically, one of the major difficulties faced by those trying to make anti-pornography laws has been the difficulty of defining pornography - filth (like beauty) is in the mind of the beholder. This has also had the positive effect of allowing the censors to make complete fools of themselves (the very booring and worthy novel 'Black Beauty' was once banned in South Africa).

In this case, where it is in everyone's interest to have a clear and reasonable policy - may I suggest that the rules be interpreted in such a way as to classify sculptures like the one above (possibly on the facade of a church?) and paintings (and even photographs) as not being 'children' or even 'characters resembling children'.

Yours,

Charles

Charles