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 |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: John Venables. Images.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jo |
Given Jamie Bulger's age when he was murdered, I see no reason to assume that these images would be of individuals just below legal age. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense.
The answer to this one is touched on by Peter, above. At the lowest end of the scale, so-called indecent images of children can be 17.5 year olds, fully clothed but doing 'erotic' posing. This includes myriad pouty selfies from teenagers, or young lads flexing their emerging biceps. In fact, there are pictures of 16 and 17 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger doing what could be described as erotic posing... in his autobiography, which I don't doubt is in many prison libraries. And of course, the 16 and 17 year old page three girls from our very own country, less than 20 years ago.
Several decades ago, indecent imagery or publication legislation was challenged in an appeal. Can't remember the citation, sorry. The ground of appeal was that the indecency element of the offence was not adequately defined (as it must be for a man to know in advance which actions of his will be legal and which will not). The decision of the judges was to assert that an ordinary dictionary definition was adequate.
OED definition: Not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters.
So given that posed, somewhat sexualised selfies are now a prevalent mode of personal presentation online, particularly for girls, such images can no longer be categorised as indecent according to the standard set by the judges in the case law.
I suspect Mr Venables has been 'caught' with nothing more than a few pictures of women who might possibly be mistaken, by a blind and mentally retarded jury, for erotically posing 17 and 3/4 year olds, rather than what they actually are: 17 year olds pulling duckface or 38 year old boilers in pigtails and an Ann Summers sexy schoolgirl outfit.
As I understand it from the reports (which might be nonsense) the images were similar to the last offence, which were pictures of young children being raped. (again, might be rubbish)
But wouldn't you just have no images of anybody any age ever if your computer is being checked?
My worry is that the type of police officer who coaches "victims" and tells them details of front doors etc could "helpfully" tamper with the computer. Especially if loads of it is (outrageously in my opinion) being viewed and used by officers all the time. |
|
Randall |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense.
The answer to this one is touched on by Peter, above. At the lowest end of the scale, so-called indecent images of children can be 17.5 year olds, fully clothed but doing 'erotic' posing. This includes myriad pouty selfies from teenagers, or young lads flexing their emerging biceps. In fact, there are pictures of 16 and 17 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger doing what could be described as erotic posing... in his autobiography, which I don't doubt is in many prison libraries. And of course, the 16 and 17 year old page three girls from our very own country, less than 20 years ago.
Several decades ago, indecent imagery or publication legislation was challenged in an appeal. Can't remember the citation, sorry. The ground of appeal was that the indecency element of the offence was not adequately defined (as it must be for a man to know in advance which actions of his will be legal and which will not). The decision of the judges was to assert that an ordinary dictionary definition was adequate.
OED definition: Not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters.
So given that posed, somewhat sexualised selfies are now a prevalent mode of personal presentation online, particularly for girls, such images can no longer be categorised as indecent according to the standard set by the judges in the case law.
I suspect Mr Venables has been 'caught' with nothing more than a few pictures of women who might possibly be mistaken, by a blind and mentally retarded jury, for erotically posing 17 and 3/4 year olds, rather than what they actually are: 17 year olds pulling duckface or 38 year old boilers in pigtails and an Ann Summers sexy schoolgirl outfit. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense. |
|
hedda |
Peter & Randall get Gold Stars for sensibility.
On reflection both are reduced to Silver Stars only..Peter's outrageous offer of 100 Baht when he knows that's not worth a fiver... 
and Randall didn't even include that fiver with his postcard. 
Both spot on though  |
|
|
|
|
