My previous question on the age of The Sun's Page 3 girls could have easily been answered had I simpy gone to Sam Fox's own website or her Wikipedia entry which states :

"Her parents gave their consent for their daughter to pose topless, and on Tuesday, 22 February 1983, Fox's first Page Three photograph was published under the headline "

Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels."

Samantha Karen "Sam" Fox was born on 15 April 1966 in Mile End, London.

If one desired they could go to the Page 3 website www.page3.com , to view snaps of their favourite bird although oddly-none of Sam Fox are available !.

Probably because the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling to 18.

But what's that I hear you say from the back row ?

yes..an interesting conundrum arises that needs deeper investigation.

Under current US & UK law those publishing pictures of Samantha Fox (who is a wonderful lady !), her parents and indeed, those who displayed those pics or kept copies of their Page 3 gal would be charged with the production, distribution and possession of child porn.

In the USA it could earn you a life jail sentence and as many hapless "sexting" teens are discovering, inclusion for life as a registered "sex offendor".

There may be a defence..if they were considered "artistic" but I doubt a Page 3 pic would pass for anything else but a titilating and purposefully sexually and provactively posed photograph. And the accompanying words would settle that.

But a deeper problem emerges : sexually based crimes of course, have no time limit and that includes the production of child porn.

Will the police investigate as they so readily rushed to investigate historical abuse, in say the Haute de la Guerre fantasy ?.

(And let's not even mention the compensation case any under 18 Page 3 girl would have against The Sun lest one gets the idea to take them on in a case they would easily win.

We don't want to open that can of worms !)















UK law

Yes true about it now being classed as CP.
Trouble is it was manufactured legally before the law change.So was legal at the time of production.
If they still own copies then perhaps we could get them on posession? Be worth a try.

So the law means that anyone who owns a book about the 70s with a picture of Sam Fox in it topless is now subject to this law which means they will be charged with being a Paedophile and placed on the Sex Offenders register for 5 years.

In addition any blokes who at the time saved newspaper cuttings of Sam and the others will also be considered in 2009 as Paedophiles and be charged and put on the Sex Offenders Register.

By my calculation there could be MILLIONS of books about the 70s out there which are carrying a picture of Sam Fox.......so that means MILLIONS of UK people are at risk of being arrested under this law.

Crazy.

and while the Police go round enforcing this silly law 13 year olds are gang raped because there are no POLICE on the streets patrolling after 7p.m on foot.

"They offer you a feature on stockings and suspenders,next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders" Billy Bragg, "It Says Here"

I have personally taken photos of San Fox topless before she was 18.

Will I be prosecuted?

were they artistic or erotic ?

I do hope so.

We all know that people who possess old pictures from page 3 are not going to get arrested for child porn. Those arrested usually have thousands of highly offensive pictures (rape, torture etc), not a few pictures of semi-nakedness of a 16 year old.

We know that the ones who make the papers have thousands of pictures of toddlers.

Topless pics of 16 year olds are considered level 1 child porn. Such people are usually merely cautioned (i.e, you are on the police files for life as a suspected pedo).

The Daily Mail kicked up a fuss a couple of years ago when the sentancing guidlines were announced and it was declared that level 1 child porn should just result in a caution (Child Porn Perverts to Escape Jail!!!).

The reason why these laws are in place is to give the police and government power over people. Every single male who looks at porn (i.e 90% of males) have at some point looked at level 1 child porn. That gives the police a justification to come knocking on the doors of 90% of the male population.

Some people have all the luck.

perhaps.. but I wouldn't push my luck on that one.

I originally inquired because of a Murdoch hacks description in a newspaper of an innocent suspect's walls being covered in "atrocities" ie: nude photographs of young women over the age 18.

He has responded to my inquiry that he "did not personally view these "atrocities" and was " repeating statements contained in a police media release ". (fairly typical)

My further email wondering whether he would actually investigate these "atrocities" ( entirely legal and therefore should not have been subject to a police media release) and how did they compare with, as an example, the topless photographs of 16 year old girls who appeared in his UK sister publication The Sinking Sun on Page 3 was met with an extremely angry response accusing me basically of being an "obsessed nutter"..perhaps, although that is a standard response from News Ltd hacks.

I've sent an email to the Australian Federal Police to inquire if it's normal practice to issue media releases describing legal material with what seems to be personal opinion ie: "atrocities".

They will "respond to my inquiry in time".

Fact 1 : The Australian Federal Police will soon settle for an undisclosed sum ( millions $$) with Dr Haneef-an Indian doctor illegally detained in 2007 after the Glasgow airport bombing and held for 21 days in custody when a police officers and a crown prosecutor deliberately lied in court despite a Scotland Yard terrrorism expert informing them he was an innocent man.

Fact 2 : the Indian media is currently on the rampage about Australia accusing the country of being a land of "xenophobic rednecks" after over 100 Indian university students have been beaten in the last year by yobs-which seriously puts as risk a billion $$ industry in tutoring foreign students. New Zealand has responded that Indian and any foreign students will be safe if they travel there.

Fact 3 : Indian MPs demanded the head of the Australian Federal Police Commander after his disgraceful actions over Dr Haneef and his subsequent attacks on journalists and lawyers who exposed his shenanigans. The government announced he would remain.

Fact 4: Mick Keelty, Commander of the Australian Federal Police has announced his unexpected retirement and the Australian government is to send a delegation to India to soothe shattered perceptions.

Fact 5 : to be fair-it was a Murdoch newspaper that originally published Australian Federal Police interview records with Dr Haneef that exposed police officers complete ignorance about terrorism and attempts to fit-up the innocent doctor.

Deborah Orr of the Daily Mail responded when I claimed she was engaging in "tabloid journalism" over GG's return to the UK.

She fumed at being accused of being a "tabloid journalist " as an "ad hominen attack"(quite rightly )

I had said that considering GG only received a 4 month sentence, it might indicate his offence was at the lowest end of the scale and surely she knew police were prone to exageration and that GG was being singled out because of he was a 'celebrity".

She said that was "irrelevant".

It's all in the eye of the beholder of course but don't dare accuse a hack of that. They have fragile egos.

You exaggerate, How many people have been prosecuted for possessing old copies of the sun newspaper? The Police have to have a reason to search your house or computer.
Nowone would consider a page 3 picture of Sam Fox at 16 or 17 as child porn.
Also how do you know that the people that make the papers have pictures of toddlers.

If you owned a book about the 70s with a topless picture of Sam Fox, you could be done for child porn seeing as she was 13 at the end of that decade. Possibly worth thinking before you speak.