Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Media Thoughts...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
And I predict a journalist with initiative (and a little cash) will track down the now teenage girls in the Glitter case and get an amazing interview where they admit they made it all up and were paid by someone acting on behalf of a British tabloid - said person unable to be prosecuted (out of the country) of course...
Oh, it's all a GREAT STORY! |
|
veritas |
Locked Out wrote:
[quote]In The Know wrote:
I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?)
I don't think I'm wrong in identifying Nathalie Banus, aged only 15, appearing topless, with the words "She'll be 16 in two days's time, then we'll show you her nipples"...or words to that effect. [quote]
I wonder if this falls within the act:
The law on child pornography
Under section 1(1) of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person to:
(d) publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.' |
|
Chris Retro |
Oh that law was changed retrospectively in light of paedo-propaganda! Officially, anyone with pictures of 16 yr old Sam Fox (or any of the others) are possessing 'indecent images of children', this of course is 'to protect children' but it would apply to 25 yr old photos that were published legally at the time in a multi-million selling daily newspaper of someone who is now in her 40's... You couldn't make it up.
So yes, guys you can go and f**k a 16 yr old girl quite legally - but take photo's of her and you're guilty of possessing indecent images of a 'child' and would become a criminal for the pictures yet legal for the sex.
I'm afraid this country has crossed the point of no return. |
|
Locked Out |
In The Know wrote:
I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?)
It's an interesting fact that, should the 16 year olds in question had been on a computer rather than a newspaper they would render the owner liable to prospecution for the possession {and distribution?} of indecent images of children. I don't think I'm wrong in identifying Nathalie Banus, aged only 15, appearing topless, with the words "She'll be 16 in two days's time, then we'll show you her nipples"...or words to that effect. One can only marvel at the literal- though sadly only imaginary- media circus as the newspapers {as far as I recall it was the Star who were the chief purveyors of the 15/16 year olds} chase each other's tails screaming "pedo scum".... |
|
JK2006 |
I'm going to HMV later today and will ask (in a very low voice) what Glitter records they have. What is the point of a trial (and sentence) if the media - who brought 16 year old girls' tits to the breakfast table, remember - can conduct a witch-hunt (for life ?) |
|
|
|
