King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: how old were Page 3 girls like Samantha Fox?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
veritas	It's the brazen hypocrisy that gets me and I'm after scalps as I sense the beginning of a change is in the wind for the last 100 years of witch-hunts and repression that has probably resulted in more abused children than not. It could be said that the British tabloids and their relentless publishing of teen topless girls led to the need for the current "pedo panic"..using their rules. 2 years ago an Oz think tank blasted the leading department store chain for their constant use of young teens in provocative poses in adverts, calling it "Corporate Pedophilia". The outcry was immense with the stores immediately launching a libel action..quietly dropped 2 months ago. Unfortunately they tried to shift blame to a photographer who brandished company memos detailing what they wanted in snaps. He now has a libel action winging it's way to the department stores. How can you have a tacky tabloid like The Sun that rants and raves about "morality" but has an editor who campaigns for abused husbands when she was arrested for the very same herself. Imagine the hue and cry they would be pumping out if an abuser was put in charge of a safe haven for the abused ? The webs those in power weave become very complicated and they are always bound to ensnare themselves in their own corrupted web.
robbiex	I remember when the very large breasted Linsey-Dawn MacKenzie was approaching her 16th birthday and the 'Daily Sport' (Not that I read that rag) were having a big countdown to her birthday when they could legally show her topless. There was nothing childlike about Linsey's figure if anyone can remember. It seems a bit wrong that the newspaper were counting down to her birthday, its as if they wouldn't be morally opposed to showing her topless, they were just worried about the legal position.
Innocent Accused	I think the law was changed around 1984.Probally under pressure from Reagan moral majority types over the pond. Shame we can't retrospectively prosecute,or could we?
BR	JK is right. They were terribly young - I seem to remember I was at school and one girl from our school was featured. Many times they were in school tie. I would think that in the current climate that no current journalist has not gone back and tried to initiate prosecution against all the photographers from back then - and the newspaper editors. That is another reason why the NoW Sarahs Law ( which is unworkable ) is so ridiculous. If it was the Telegraph or Guardian campaigning for this then I would take it more seriously - but a newspaper which has used young girls in this way to suddenly take a moral high ground in the same area is murky and is of mixed motives. I still believe the "paedo" scare stories from the Murdoch press are to cover up the real agenda by the NWO. It is still a fact that most abuse takes place in the family unit - and that "stranger danger" is thankfully very rare.
JK2006	Sam was 16 when I met her - they had just changed News Int rules making the girls over 16 (some previously had been 15).