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: GARY GLITTER hanged.......on C4
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
veritas	that's a good point but laws are never retrospective although there has been attempts by lowlife politicians to introduce retrospective penalties but usually the legal community comes out in force against it. The Sun Page 3 girls are an interesting case-if a person still had them in the possession they would be charged and I bet News ltd has deleted and destroyed all their images (?). However one fact still remains-millions of people viewed them so do we now call them pedos or offendors ?
Innocent Accused	Up until 1984 it was legal to post nude pictures of 16 year old girls in Newspapers like the Sun,and glamor magazines like Mayfair/playboy etc. The law was changed,primarily as a way of increasing convictions.So would the nude photos of Sam Fox shown regularly in the Sun at age 16 make Murdoch and co a criminal? The very same man who's paper has led a media campaign against presumed pedos were peddlers of child porn pics up to 1984. Can we possibly backtrack a prosecution against Murdoch? Give him a taste of his own medicine.If anyone has a legal mind could they comment on this idea? I do believe there is no statue of limitations,and I do remember a documentary years ago where 15 yo models were photographed by the Sun,to make up a portfolio for when they hit 16.
Hamlet	This whole idea seems in very poor taste. It is simply a cheap ratings grabber & any valid issues it may raise are simply excuses to justify sensationalism. Next it will be footage of real hangings etc
BR	I would like to see this taken to its logical conclusion. ANY PORN IMAGE should carry a jail sentence. Otherwise the JUSTICE system is giving a mixed message. If they are saying vieiwing a photo is "abuse" then it is the same for an adult as a child. Both are being violated in my view. PORN is selfish and lowers the self esteem of both adults and children. At the moment we have "Paedohysteria" which means magically at 18 years old it is suddenly OK to abuse and violate other human beings ? How can that be right ? How can ANY porn be justified ? Just because it is "culturally acceptable" to the elite classes who get their jollies from porn ( and lots of money ) does not mean it is right. It is crazy that people can be arrested for homophobia or racist comments - yet we have a massive LEGAL PORN industry which is abusing thousands of women and some men. Lets be honest - pornstars are almost always very low IQ and in it for money. They are being abused as much as any children - because there is the double whammy that they are being PAID - almost like sex slaves for the pleasure of the elite. Our Government and Country is very sick. It needs real healing - not the fake Snake Oil of David Cameron who has not got the guts to improve society for the poorest because his rich friends will stop him by drying up donations for his party.
veritas	no-the 'only ' bit was in reference to the post before. But there are categories and varying degrees of crime and if he only got 4 moths it indicates to me he wasn't in the worst category. But I still have doubts that 'looking' can really be a crime..although it's the downloading and possession that gets people busted. It's a question I've asked many and I've yet to get a reply-if looking is repeating the crime each time as claimed...then what happens when judges, policemen, juries and court officials look at pics ?. Is the crime temporarily suspended? And could it be claimed that when the media published or broadcast images of the beheadings of captives in Iraq were they assisting the crime and was the public doing the crime by viewing? I don't know the answer and I reckon I'll never get one. *********************** Although there is a bit of an answer...a few years ago police in Oz sent out photographs of an abused girl to hundreds of school teachers around NSW state in an effort to identify her. But instead of censoring the photo they sent the full pic..body and all. Did they abuse the girl again by doing so and did all the teachers by looking at it ?(and who knows if some didn't keep the pic and pass it on ) The police weren't reprimanded and the teachers were simply asked to delete the pic..and the authorities were back claiming that viewing was a crime within weeks. When the law is full of conundrums it gets a bit sticky!