Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: the media is full of paedos
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
fascinating to watch an episode of The Kardashians last night.
It was about the family getting upset as someone was trying to sell naked and raunchy pictures of one of the sisters and her boyfriend to a magazine.
The sister and her boyfriend had taken the pics themselves- when they were at school and 15 and 16 years old (10 years earlier). They were stolen from the family house.
The FBI was called in and the seller was arrested as they all talked about it the pics being illicit etc.
Yet the Kardashian sister and boyfriend were not arrested ?????
hundreds of US kids have been arrested and charged with producing kiddie porn for the very same act.
Not knowing the law- perhaps in California it wasn't illegal 10 years ago.
I'm fascinated by conundrums within the law and in this area there are so many grey parts...as I've asked my ex-copper friend who used to monitor so-called 'sex offenders' here about the concept that people looking at kiddie porn, repeat the offense all over again......so what of the judges, police etc who look at it during an investigation ??....is the offense temporarily suspended ??...he can't give an answer either  |
|
Blackit |
Carl wrote:
veritas wrote:
That flame haired bint that produced this stuff wined and dined with prime minsters
You continue to change the subject veritas...but andrew is absolutely correct. More (flesh) can be seen on any beach.
It doesn't really matter what you or Andrew wish to define child porn as. Veritas is referring to the current legal definition. Under the sexual offences act of 2003 any image of a person who is under 18, or who appears under 18, in a 'sexual context', is classed now as child pornography. People have been sentanced for downloading pictures of teenage girls in bikinis.
The fact that you can see girls topless on the beach might show how absurd the law is, but that's irrelevant to the point Veritas is making.
If you take a photo of a 17 year old girl topless on the beach then you will face a minimum 5 years in prison for the manufacture of child pornography (under minimum sentancing guidelines set by the latest EU 'child protection' treaty).
And it doesn't matter if the girl is 17, 13, or 5, it's all 'level 1 child porn'. Middle-aged feminist lobby groups such as the NSPCC were adamant that the legal definition of child porn should not mention age. A 17 year old is as much of a helpless sexually innocent child as a 5 month old toddler is (in their twisted world). |
|
andrew |
Yes can get arrested having too much porn your computer and met police can get it barred for good or just suspended for a few days if your lucky, and they confiscate it and you be banned from owning a pc. This can be women in the 30's to 80's in the pics not just the extreme cases.  |
|
veritas |
Pattaya wrote:
Not that I'm in anyway knowledgeable,but it does seem to me from these comments that you could be arrested for having these topless pics on your comp,but those who made them could not!
indeed you could be arrested, charged, convicted and labelled a paedo by those who created the porn who get to profit from it all over again.
go figure |
|
Pattaya |
Not that I'm in anyway knowledgeable,but it does seem to me from these comments that you could be arrested for having these topless pics on your comp,but those who made them could not! |
|
|
|
