Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: BROWN : Backs Porno Scanners at Airports
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
In The Know |
Don't worry ... Dead-Man-Walking Brown won't be round much longer ! |
|
veritas |
in the USA nudist type pics are legal but 'sexualised' pics aren't...but then what is 'sexual' to one person isn't to another.
These laws are getting rather complicated and you will probably end up at the mercy of a magistrate or judge and what their definition is. A bloke got arrested here in Sydney just the other day taking snaps of someone's naked kid at the beach..but why isn't the nudity itself a crime or what about those just looking and memorising the image in their brains ?.
The charges may end being very different of course...obviously he was a nuisance but it will be interesting to see how this plays out especially as 2 cases of men arrested taking photos of topless ladies at Bondi had their cases turfed out by magistrates ...because they were charged with the wrong offence.
BR is correct to some degree..some may find even these 'scanner' images sexual..not just of children but aldults as well...ther could be a whole new genre on the net.
we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway and I reckon the next terrorist step is swallowing some sort of explosive !! what then ?  |
|
Locked Out |
DR2 wrote:
When did simple nude images of children become child porn?
The criminal offence isn't framed in terms of "child porn", DR2 {as I'm sure you are actually aware}, it uses the wording "indecent images of children". In this way the criminal justice system casts the widest possible net.Of itself, any legislation which
uses terms like "decent" and "indecent" must by dint of its use of such objective interpretations be itself cock eyed {no pun intended, I promise}. As far as I'm aware there has never been a ruling - High Court or otherwise - which would dare to suggest that naturist clubs promote indecency or are in themselves indecent in any way. Such a ruling would never stand up to public scrutiny and would quite correctly be challenged. In the current climate of paedo hatred and paedo hysteria we have simply rolled over and accepted onto the stature books a law which is so badly framed that even its wording must at some point cause its redrawing.
Please don't get me wrong. I would in no way advocate the legalisation of exploitative images of children. I would just like less hypocrisy and clear {and honest} draughting of the law. The current situation is simply too likely to lead to miscarriages of justice.
That is, however, nothing to do with the controversial scanners whose use is being suggested in our airports. And, as far as I'm aware, children will be exempted from undergoing the screening anyway.
As far as I'm concerned it's just another inconvenient piece of hyper reaction on the part of the government. And yet another delay at the airport. One wonders exactly where this will end. |
|
DR2 |
If a terrorist suicide bomber wanted to get his explosives on a plane and he knew that he would be scanned but children wouldn't, all he'd have to do would be to strap the explosives to the body of his six years old son or daughter and he'd probably get away with it. I don't suppose that the security forces have thought about that, though.
On the subject of child pornography, I must somewhere along the line have missed the new law that came in equating nudity with pornography. Child porn photos used to be classed as any photo of a child engaged in sexual activity by himself (masturbation), or with other children or adults. When did simple nude images of children become child porn? |
|
BR |
Robbie you should have gone to the link.
You have adopted the "Sheep" position. You believe the image the media has given to you.
I suggest you click on the link and look at the REAL image that these million pound scnanners produce.
The General Public would "revolt" if they knew what these scanners produce - their children and them stark naked with genitals on show in graphic detail.
That is the reality of these scanners and BROWN and the BBC have not given the full details.
I suggest before you post a reply to one of my posts you check the link in detail - please - otherwise my post does not make any sense because it is based on hard evidence - not opinions.
There is massive uproar amongst many parents groups and civil liberties groups around the world about these scanners because they are so intrusive. Even the TELEGRAPH has suggested they create CHILD PORN.
I will never go through one of these scanners unless they can provide a reason WHY they think I am a terrorist. They are obscene and the amount of radiation they produce to get those images cant be good for anyone.
I can see regular AIR TRAVELLERS getting more cancer than any other people in the population. One scan from these scanners is probably the equivalent of a cancer creating dose as well.
Finally : a scanner would NOT have prevented the "bomber" getting onto the plane in AMSTERDAM. Remember he was "waved" through the checks without a passport by a smartly dressed man. He had no check - no passport !!! This was a set up. Good to see these scanners being available within 4 weeks for our airports and in the USA. Funny that - anyone would have thought this was a "staged event".........which I said it was on DAY ONE. |
|
|
|
