Sex Doll Child

⚡ 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 INFORMATION AVAILABLE CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

SICK child sex dolls modelled on a 14-year-old Instagram star are being sold on Etsy, say shocking reports.
Cops in Australia say they have seized more than 100 of the twisted mannequins over the past five months.
One seller - with the username Sexy Lady Fox - reportedly claimed some of those being sold online were based on an underage social media star.    
The sex dolls are advertised as being 156cm tall - the average height of a 13-year-old girl.
Fiends were even able to send in a photos of real children to have them customised to order, reports news.com.
“We can change the wig,” the seller said in reply when sent two computer generated images of young children.
“I think it is very similar to the images you send me.”
After Etsy was told what was happening by NCA Newswire it quickly deactivated the "shop" from the popular sales platform, say the reports.
The outrageous trade was revealed when sexual assault advocacy group - Collective Shout - posed as an interested buyer.
However, those selling the twisted items initially appeared to try and justify what they were doing.
“We are selling the most required real dolls on the market,” the seller said, who identified themselves simply as Federica.
When asked if it was the intention to make the dolls look underage, they replied: “To be honest, if I think that somebody (will) buy and use a real doll instead doing something wrong with a young girl, I’m grateful.”
However, this sick claim was branded “self-serving” by Collective Shout.
“Men who are found with child abuse dolls are also (often) found with other forms of child sex abuse material, including things like photos and videos of children and babies being raped and tortured,” said its campaign manager Caitlin Roper.
“There are reported scenarios from this year of men still incorporating living children into their child sex abuse doll use,” she added.
Ms Roper cited research from the Australian Institute of Criminology, which stated there was no evidence these kind of dolls prevent child sexual abuse.
“Instead, they present a risk of escalation and may actually increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse,” she said.
The providers of these vile sex dolls have shown they will go to sick lengths to supply customised material to pervets, Ms Roper told NCA NewsWire.
“Men could see a girl out in public, take a photo and say, ‘I want a doll modelled on her’,” she said.
“They could send in photos of children they know or have some kind of caretaking power over, so there’s lots of ways men can use this to victimise living children.
“It’s a new way they can be victimised and abused even without their knowledge and without their presence.”
Assistant Customs Minister Jason Wood said the Australian Border Force and law enforcement were working to stop the vile dolls entering the country.
“Increased intelligence work undertaken across the Home Affairs portfolio and the ABF’s commitment to detecting this abhorrent material has ensured these items are stopped at the border,” he said.
Legislation introduced in June allows for a mandatory minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment in situations where it is the person’s “second-strike” child sexual abuse offence.
“These penalties reflect the serious role that these products can play in normalising and desensitising offenders to child sexual abuse,” added Mr Wood.
“The ABF is committed to working closely with our law enforcement partners, both here in Australia and overseas, to combat this issue, and we will continue to pursue and prosecute.”
Australia has seen a spike in childlike sex doll imports with the Australian Border Force seizing more than 100 dolls in less than five months to November 18.
At least 191 dolls have been found this calendar year, in comparison to 145 in the whole of 2019. The majoritywere discovered in packages from China, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. 
Etsy has reportedly been contacted for comment over the shocking revelations.
Instagram model, 33, 'killed in murder-suicide' as fans share tributes
Biden pressured Afghan president to LIE about Taliban's strength, call shows
Felon granddad 'beat grandson, 12, to death with a HAMMER over missing cash'
Driver who attacked MSNBC reporter 'breached his PROBATION on live TV'
© 2020 THE SUN, US, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY | YOUR AD CHOICES | SITEMAP

Set font size to 100% Set font size to 125% Set font size to 150%
Switch to colour theme Switch to blue theme Switch to high visibility theme Switch to soft theme

Published: 26/03/2019 | Legal Guidance
⚖️ A teenager has been jailed for life for the murder of Christopher Hewett in #Stevenage .

Read more ➡️… https://t.co/nYBi1WvM89
© Copyright 2017 CPS. All rights reserved.
This Legal Guidance is intended to assist when prosecutors are asked to advise on allegations that an offence has been committed involving a doll withis in any way knowingly concerned is in any way knowingly concerned childlike characteristics which is capable of being used for sexual purposes. 
It relates to possible offences of importing a childlike sex doll, distributing or selling it (or having it with intent to do so), or sending it by post. There is no offence of simple possession of a childlike sex doll. 
There are three offences which may have been committed: 
(a) Knowingly acquiring possession of goods with respect to the importation of which any prohibition or restriction is in force, namely the prohibition or restriction on the importation of indecent or obscene articles, contrary to section 42 of the Customs and Consolidation Act 1876 (“CCA 1876”) and section 170(1)(a) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA 1979”). 
(b) Publishing an obscene article, whether for gain or not, or having an obscene article for publication for gain, contrary to section 2(1) Obscene Publications Act 1959 (“OPA 1959”).
(c) Sending by post a postal packet which encloses any indecent or obscene article, contrary to section 85(3)(b) Postal Services Act 2000. 
Section 42 of the CCA 1876, and the Table to which it refers, provides that: 
“The goods enumerated and described in the following table of prohibitions and restrictions inwards are hereby prohibited to be imported or brought into the United Kingdom,
A TABLE OF PROHIBITION AND RESTRICTIONS INWARDS 
… Indecent or obscene prints, paintings, photographs, books, cards, lithographic or other engravings, or any other indecent or obscene articles.” 
 Section 170 of CEMA 1979 provides: 
“(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of the Customs and Excise Acts 1979, if any person— 
(a) knowingly acquires possession of any of the following goods, that is to say— 
(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any such goods, and does so with intent to defraud Her Majesty of any duty payable on the goods or to evade any such prohibition or restriction with respect to the goods he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and may be arrested.” 
This offence is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Goods may be forfeited pursuant to section 49 CEMA 1979. 
Other offences under CEMA 1979 are viable, including those contrary to section 50(3) and 170(2) (noting the breadth of conduct caught by the latter offence). It is anticipated however that most allegations will concern a person knowingly acquiring possession of prohibited/restricted items. 
The second offence available concerns a person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article, or a person who has an obscene article for publication for gain (whether gain to himself or gain to another). Such a person commits an offence contrary to section 2(1) OPA 1959.  “Obscene, “article” and “publishes” are defined in section 1 of the Act: 
his offence is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. 
The third offence concerns a similar assessment of indecent and obscenity involving articles sent by post. The ordinary meaning of “indecent” – whether for this offence or the CCA 1876 provision – is “shocking, disgusting and revolting” (the formulation of Lord Reid in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [1972] 3 W.L.R. 143). 
It is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is twelve months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. 
At the present time, the UK is a party to the EEC Treaty which does not permit prohibitions or restrictions on importation in relation to goods whose sale is not also prohibited or restricted within the UK:
Henn and Darby v DPP [1981] A.C. 850; Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise [1987] 1 Q.B. 254. As set out below, the sale of child-like sex dolls is caught by the OPA 1959, but on the basis that those dolls are obscene within the meaning of OPA 1959 (have a tendency to deprave or corrupt). Accordingly, the OPA 1959 definition of obscene, and not the ordinary meaning nor “indecent”, should be adopted when considering the CEMA 1979 offence for importation within the EU, but otherwise the ordinary meaning of the words “indecent” and “obscene” applies. The phrase “obscene” will henceforth be used as defined by the OPA 1959. 
Two elements of the offence contrary to section 170(1) CEMA 1979 fall to be considered: “obscene”, and “knowing acquisition”. 
When assessing obscenity, prosecutors should consider: 
When assessing whether or not the doll has been created for sexual use, consideration should be given to any evidence concerning the purpose for which it is marketed; any features which are consistent with use for sexual gratification; any accompanying paraphernalia indicating that sexual activity is to take place. 
When assessing whether or not the doll has childlike features, prosecutors should consider whether the nature and quality of the childlike features mean – whatever other characteristics are also present – the doll unquestionably embodies childlike features.
This involves an exercise in judgment about what a jury is likely to conclude about the appearance of the doll. Expert evidence as to age or appearance, or obscenity, is not admissible and should not be sought. This is consistent with the position in respect of indecent images of children, where the age of a child is a finding of fact for the jury to determine and expert evidence is inadmissible: R v Land [1997] EWCA Crim 2409; and the position concerning expert evidence of obscenity confirmed in Calder and Boyars Ltd [1969] 1 QB 151. Nor is it permissible to use other evidence, such as other material suggesting a sexual interest in children (for instance, indecent images of children), when assessing whether the doll is, objectively and of itself, obscene. Neither the motive of the person possessing/importing, nor the existence of material external to the doll, is relevant or admissible on this question, by analogy to Graham-Kerr 88 Cr App R 302 and Smethurst [2002] Cr App R 6. 
The evidence as to whether child-like sex dolls in fact encourage or discourage a person from progressing to offending against children is inconclusive (and expert evidence inadmissible on this point) and so prosecutors cannot therefore rely on an assumption that either will follow when assessing obscenity (as defined by the OPA 1959), or obscenity or indecency when considering importation from outside the EU. Prosecutors should consider instead the use and appearance of the doll. 
The prosecution must also prove that the defendant knew that the goods which had been imported, and which he acquired possession of, were goods subject to a prohibition or a restriction. The prosecution is not required to further prove that a defendant knew the precise category of goods the importation of which had been prohibited: R v Hussain [1969] 2 Q.B. 567, 53 Cr.App.R. 448. Knowledge, however, must be proved. As possession of a childlike sex doll is not unlawful per se in England and Wales, prosecutors should start from the position that, without more, a suspect may not know its importation is unlawful. Prosecutors will need to consider this element of the offence carefully. They may in particular focus upon: 
This legislation seeks to criminalise those who make material, which has a tendency to deprave or corrupt its audience, available to others. 
A childlike sex doll is capable of being an article embodying matter to be looked at, and thus an article within the meaning of the Act. In Conegate Ltd. v H.M. Customs and Excise [1987] 2 W.L.R. 39 a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles. This concession does not prevent prosecutors from contending that childlike sex dolls are obscene articles. 
A person who distributes or sells a childlike sex doll, or has it for distributing or selling for gain, is capable of publishing it within the meaning of the Act. While section 1(3)(b) provides an alternative way in which an article embodying matter to be looked at may be published, it is upon the alternative provision in section 1(3)(a) that a person may be said (using the wide terms of the OPA 1959) to have published an article. Publication may need only be to one person and may include paedophilic fantasy: R v Gavin Smith [2012] EWCA Crim 398. 
As with “article” and “publish”, prosecutors must apply the definition provided for by the legislation when assessing the question of “obscene”. This is distinct from other legislation, including the CCA 1876, which does not define this word and whose ordinary meaning applies. 
In this context, prosecutors must consider the evidence that the likely recipient of the childlike sex doll may be depraved or corrupted. Regard may be had at this stage to the other evidence in the case, whether the doll was to be used to satisfy a sexual interest in children and the likelihood that it would be limited to the doll or to child sexual offences. A defence based on an argument that the likely audience is already depraved or corrupt is unlikely to succeed. The Act is not merely concerned with the once and for all corruption of the wholly innocent; it equally seeks to protect the less innocent from further corruption, the addict from feeding or increasing his addiction: Whyte [1972] 3 All ER 12. Prosecutors should note, and go on to consider if appropriate, the statutory defence provided for by section 2(5) OPA 1959: 
“A person shall not be convicted of an offence against this section if he proves that he had not examined the article in respect of which he is charged and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it was such that his publication of it would make him liable to be convicted of an offence against this section.” 
In addition to considering the public interest factors tending in favour of, and against, a prosecution in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors will also have regard to the following.
The seriousness of this offending is its potential link to sexual offending against children. However, as set out above, it cannot be assumed that this will follow nor is there conclusive evidence that this is the case. Further, as the court in Dobson [2017] EWCA Crim 2435 observed: “whilst there is a clear public policy in deterring those who sustain the market in [indecent images of children] ….the position may be different whose activities are restricted to using dolls for their own private sexual pleasure”. Notwithstanding that prosecutors are entitled to reach a conclusion that childlike sex dolls may have a tendency to deprave or corrupt, on the particular facts of the case they are dealing with, they should not base their decisions at either the evidential or the public interest stage on a general and more serious ground that possession of a doll will lead to more serious offending. 
Where there is other evidence that the suspect was furthering a sexual interest in children, such as relevant communications or indecent images of children, that will be a further factor tending in favour of a prosecution. The absence of any other evidence or offending demonstrating a sexual interest in children and/or that the doll was not likely to come into contact with any other person will be a factor or factors tending against a prosecution. The age of the doll may also be relevant: the younger its apparent age, the greater the public interest in prosecuting.  
The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases.
This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.
The Crown Prosecution Service
102 Petty France,
London, SW1H 9EA


GOV.UK is the place to find
government's services and
information online.

Help us to improve our website; let us know
what you think by taking our short survey
Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1937982/sick-child-sex-dolls-teen-instagram-star-etsy-australia/
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sex-dolls-childlike
Tg Tf Pregnant
Mature Com Film
Xvideos Com Skachat
Sick child sex dolls modelled on 14-year-old Instagram ...
Sex Dolls - Childlike | The Crown Prosecution Service
Child Sex Dolls: Why Aren’t They Illegal? – NBC Boston
Design, Use, and Effects of Sex Dolls and Sex Robots ...
S' porean Student Jailed In Australia For Importing Sex ...
The 'new phenomenon' of child sex dolls - BBC News
Child sex dolls help catch previously unknown suspected ...
Paedo caught with six sickening child-like sex dolls in ...
Brisbane man charged after sex dolls with child -like ...
Perverts who keep sick lifelike child sex dolls ...
Sex Doll Child