The Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport could become the first British national newspapers to stop operating in 16 years (since Today folded).

www.metro.co.uk/news/859789-britain-bids-goodbye-to-daily-sport

The dear old Sunday Sport launched the career of the nation's second favourite tabloid kiddy porn star - Lindsey Dawn McKenzie (behind only Sam Fox, of course).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie#Glamour_career

as I said on my thread abour creeping Fascism...another attack on intellectuals and the arts !

I'm just surprised it lasted so long!

Cheap soft porn and stories a 6 yo would fail to believe in,so how did Sullivan get rich on this crap?

Blackit wrote:
The Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport could become the first British national newspapers to stop operating in 16 years (since Today folded).

www.metro.co.uk/news/859789-britain-bids-goodbye-to-daily-sport

The dear old Sunday Sport launched the career of the nation's second favourite tabloid kiddy porn star - Lindsey Dawn McKenzie (behind only Sam Fox, of course).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie#Glamour_career

She's hardly a kiddie porn star, she was over 16 with 40" breasts. She was old enough to be married. Although the law may have changed now so that under-18s can't do glamour shots, it doesn't mean that they are now legally children, so saying it is kiddie porn is been more over-dramatic than the daily mail.

robbiex wrote:
Blackit wrote:
The Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport could become the first British national newspapers to stop operating in 16 years (since Today folded).

www.metro.co.uk/news/859789-britain-bids-goodbye-to-daily-sport

The dear old Sunday Sport launched the career of the nation's second favourite tabloid kiddy porn star - Lindsey Dawn McKenzie (behind only Sam Fox, of course).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie#Glamour_career

She's hardly a kiddie porn star, she was over 16 with 40" breasts. She was old enough to be married. Although the law may have changed now so that under-18s can't do glamour shots, it doesn't mean that they are now legally children, so saying it is kiddie porn is been more over-dramatic than the daily mail.

A good point Rob,but let us not remember by law any nudity under the age of 18 is classed as child porn...and the NOTW have been very prominent in campaigning against child porn.In fact they helped create the current media pedo hysteria.
If you live by the sword...etc...oh and before we forget these girls did nude test shots at age 15...the plot thickens

Exactly right Pattaya.

And yes, anyone under the age of 18 is now legally classified as a child, and what the Sun and The Sport published nearly every day only a decade or two ago would now be classified as child porn and get you a place on the sex offenders register if you still have any old copies in the attic.

The present definiton of a child as anyone under 18 is based upon the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the child, which was lobbied for by feminists and American conservative groups and passed in 1989 and is now enforced pretty much everywhere.

Obviously 16 and 17 year olds are not children, and defining them as such retards their development as responsible adults, together with a multitude of other negative social effects. But older feminists and puritanical conservatives wanted to exclude attractive young women from the sexual market under the pretence of 'protecting children', so children they now (legally) are.

robbiex wrote:
Blackit wrote:
The Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport could become the first British national newspapers to stop operating in 16 years (since Today folded).

www.metro.co.uk/news/859789-britain-bids-goodbye-to-daily-sport

The dear old Sunday Sport launched the career of the nation's second favourite tabloid kiddy porn star - Lindsey Dawn McKenzie (behind only Sam Fox, of course).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie#Glamour_career

She's hardly a kiddie porn star, she was over 16 with 40" breasts. She was old enough to be married. Although the law may have changed now so that under-18s can't do glamour shots, it doesn't mean that they are now legally children, so saying it is kiddie porn is been more over-dramatic than the daily mail.

I beg to differ ..possession of those photos on your computer or perhaps pinned up behind your bedroom dooe would now have you arrested and charged with possession of child porn albeit in the lowest category.

More than likely you would receive the lowest of penalties or perhaps a caution if you were lucky.

The oddest aspect though is unlike in any other case on this planet- those who manufactured and distributed this child pornogrpahy for profit have not only been lauded ( Murdoch !) and been received at the seats of power ( No 10. The White House) they have driven government policiy and are at the forefront of ramping up inaccurate pedo hysteria (again for profit).

I guarantee-if any other producer of kiddie porn..say from the 1970's , 80's..were discovered and it could be proved they would be charged.

It's a bizarre situation of course but we now see the results of gutless politicians pandering to media moguls and not standing up to these unelected dictators of public policy....they have been allowed to operate in an atmosphere of criminality ( hacking) and now we find they have actually perverted those who police the laws.

As the head of the American Civil Liberties Union has said repeatedly about this shocking perverserion of politics " you can beat a 16 year old boy nearly to death and get a sentence of 3 years..take a snap of him with an erection and you will get life".

The hypocrisy here is the greatest crime and Murphy's Law (Irish-never wrong) says that it will all end in disaster.

ps : remember-while Murdoch was producing what is now regarded as child pornography he was also a guest of Margaret Thatcher's at No 10 Downing Street.

beg to differ ..possession of those photos on your computer or perhaps pinned up behind your bedroom dooe would now have you arrested and charged with possession of child porn albeit in the lowest category.

More than likely you would receive the lowest of penalties or perhaps a caution if you were lucky.



Agreed with everything in that post Veritas (as usual) except I would point out that when the likes of the NSPCC lobbied for the present 'levels' of child porn seriousness they made sure that there was no distinction based upon age (as I intimated earlier, the whole point of paedohysteria is primarily to stop men looking at or approaching 16 - 21 year olds, has nothing do with stopping the abuse of toddlers).

Thus a sexy pic of a 17 year old (or, for that matter, a 25 year old who looks 17) is, or should be according to the guidelines, treated just as seriously as a nude pic of a 6 month old baby.

Secondly, the EU are shortly to implement their latest child protection directive, which will force all member states to introduce mimimum two year sentences for ANY child porn offence. So really do make sure you have no old copies of the Sun or the Sport lying around in the attic, otherwise the legal system will have no choice but to punish you with at least 2 years jail.

Just to correct you Blackit - the legal definition of a child in the UK - from the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - never repealed - is "a person under 14".

JK2006 wrote:
Just to correct you Blackit - the legal definition of a child in the UK - from the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - never repealed - is "a person under 14".

A quick question,is it classed as child porn if the person concerned is over 14?

JK2006 wrote:
Just to correct you Blackit - the legal definition of a child in the UK - from the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - never repealed - is "a person under 14".

That's interesting JK - I hadn't realised it had never been repealed.

I wonder if that fact could be used as a basis to challenge the increasingly whacky 'child protection' laws and draconian punishments that are always actually aimed at curbing the sexuality of teenagers?

Personally, I think it should be a criminal offence to even describe a person over 14 as a child. There should also be regulations to ensure that child protection laws are always seperate to 'youth' protection laws.

Presently, real and valid concerns over protecting young children are manipulated by lobby groups with a vested interest in restricting the sexuality of young people.

For example - the present hysteria over the sexualisation of 'children'. Real concerns over 8 year olds wearing padded bras will no doubt be manipulated into laws that practically require 17 year olds to go out wearing burqas only.

Has BR disappeared again, btw?