Does anyone know how old any of the Page 3 girls were ?

I'm about to take on a journalist (press release re-writer) about a craven piece of sensationalism in Rupert Murdoch's biggest Oz tabloid The Telegraph which has previous form in presenting misleading facts.

There isn't a web link..it was only in print..but apparently around 19 men were arrested for downloading an horrific video of the rape of a 2 year old girl that briefly appeared on a East Europe website.

It's long been reported that innocent people can easily stray onto illicit sites or material..a danger for all who use the net as their ISP number can be recorded..and in many of these busts people are found to have no illicit child porn and thus are never charged. Intent is always meaningful in the law. It's a problem for police who may have to investigate 1000's and whittle it down to real suspects.

But this latest piece in the hysterical Daily Telegraph today describes how police raided one young 19 year old man and how his bedroom wall was "covered in photographs of naked barely legal teen girls"

There is no such thing as "barely legal"..either they are legal or not. Indeed..the article goes on to say all his pictures were of legal aged teens and he wasn't charged !. In other words..the guy had committed no crime and the pics must have been of women over age 18.

Note how in reports,it's always a "young man" of 19 when a tabloid wants to trash someone, but "teens" even over 18, when they want to write about "innocents".

This writer describes how the young man , with no room left on his walls, went onto cover his windows with pics and that the very normal suburban house showed no signs outside "of the atrocities that lay within".

Well it sounds like the young bloke is overly horny (if such a thing is possible) and may have an obsession problem with collecting, but apart from that, I fail to see how legal photographs of naked women..teens or otherwise amount to "atrocities".

I'm researching just how many "atrocities" News Ltd newspapers have published worldwide.

After speaking to aMedia Watch(a local ABC program that rips the media to shreds) they were already onto the ludicrous tale.

This newspaper has a disgraceful record..they had to settle libel actions with a bunch of schoolkids who they plastered across the front page and labeled them the "dumbest students in Australia ".

In a really bizarre case about a year ago..the top NSW prosecutor himself was charged with possession of child porn (but remarkably given a 48 hour tip-off before he was raided by police).

Convicted, a number of former judges and magistrates, retired cops, University professors and barristers gave written references for his sentencing. They were then called "peadophile friends" etc in the quite revolting tabloid and an on-line and printed reader's comment pages, accused of all sorts of illicit actions and demands the referees be investigated and prosectued.

I watched with eyes wide open as this bizarre slandering went on for 4 days , thinking either all sanity had gone out the window or libel laws had been changed without my knowledge.

The back-flips within a fortnight by the Daily Telegraph could be seen for miles..it's estimated it will cost them around $40M in libel settlements and legal fees.

6 months ago before a QLD state election the same tabloid published topless and nude photos supposedly of the controversial nutter Pauline Hanson in her re-election bid. (they were eventually found to be from a Russian dating site).

Ms Hanson should be able to add several 1000 aces to her cattle property with the settlement she eventually gets.

Sam was 16 when I met her - they had just changed News Int rules making the girls over 16 (some previously had been 15).

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.

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?

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.

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.